[mikeryan]

CEO salaries aren’t, and never have been, relative to the rank and file salaries.

The question is how much you need to be to get a competent executive relative to the open market.

You can argue whether they’re getting what they’re paying for but this doesn’t seem to be out of line relative to the leaders of other, similarly sized organizations. Also a non profit has to have higher salaries as there’s not a lot of room to offload that to bonuses or equity.

[wkat4242]

True, Hiring a CEO is basically buying into an old boys network. It's like legalised corruption. With them you buy the goodwill of all of their buddies in other CEO positions.

However in this case it doesn't actually seem to be paying off.

[eldaisfish]

the benchmark of what other CEOs make is a horrible metric. There is an entire industry of « Consultants » who will justify a higher CEO salary by claiming that other CEOs make the higher salary and then work with those other CEOs by point to your now higher salary.

[mikeryan]

Note, I didn’t say that it had to be relative to other CEO salaries. It has to be competitive to any other position that a candidate has available to them.

What would Mitchell make as an SVP at a FAANG company? What could they make as a startup founder?

[Buttons840]

> The question is how much you need to be to get a competent executive relative to the open market.

No! The real question is what happens without an executive, but some cheaper leadership structure instead?

I mean, maybe a cheaper leadership structure (whatever it may be) would run the company into the ground, but, well, at least they would achieve the same outcome for cheaper.

[ako]

Don’t know, as a shareholder I would be very happy with a capable CEO that is able to extract profits from a doomed product. As long as she’s bringing in more than she costs the ROI is positive.