[JumpCrisscross]

> maybe the CEO compensation should be adjusted accordingly?

This is outside the domain of unpaid moderators’ unless the CEO’s compensation is threatening the company’s survival. It clearly is not.

[passwordoops]

$193M compensation to lead a business to unprofitability is a problem. Period.

[JumpCrisscross]

> $193M compensation to lead a business to unprofitability is a problem. Period.

The compensation did not lead to unprofitability—it contributed to it. And we have no evidence by which to claim it would have been worse under less-paid management. (Well, with Reddit, we might.)

I’m not defending the compensation per se. But arguing everyone at any profitable entity should be paid less until the venture is profitable, irrespective of any other facts, is silly. Particularly when it comes to non-cash compensation.

[pjc50]

> But arguing everyone at any [un?]profitable entity should be paid less until the venture is profitable, irrespective of any other facts, is silly.

This is the argument usually made for redundancies: reducing the overall payroll.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the argument usually made for redundancies: reducing the overall payroll

It’s for increasing profits. Redundancies are reduces at profitable and unprofitable firms alike.