[sequoia]

It's pretty absurd of him to talk about how it's ridiculous that people are paid $50mil (I agree) then pivot and say that $120,000 per annum for a new grad is another example of "ridiculous comp." These things are not in the same ballpark, they are qualitatively different.

I don't know the author but this is so bizarre it makes me question their analysis overall.

[8f2ab37a-ed6c]

Brings articles like this to mind: https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-s...

[lowercased]

"Law firms went through this cycle twenty years ago."

The reference was to new law grads 20 years ago getting $120k jobs. That indeed was a high starting point for most recent grads from most fields 20 years ago.

[sequoia]

agreed, but this is IMO qualitatively different from a 50mil salary. The $120k job might be classified as normal competition for talent and therefor be outside the scope of what this article is talking about (astronomical salaries).

[krupan]

In his defense, he (should be, at least) talking about relative pay for each job. It's like talking about the price of milk and the price of caviar (or some other expensive and rare food, I don't know). You can find both at prices that you would call ridiculous and at prices you would say are a good deal, but those prices would never be in the same ballpark. A wise consumer can save money on both by shopping around.