The interesting part as far as the salaries they are not obscene. Many of the people who started learning at women who code could easily be making more than the CEO by now.
Individually, they're not obscene - but they are leaders of many, many organizations at the same time. If they make an income from each of these positions, I think it would add up pretty fast.
For example, according to her linkedin, the CEO of WWC is also the Strategic Advisor of a banking company, an Advisory Board Member of 3 organizations including a university, and a Principal (?) of some LLC. Simultaneously.
Are you thinking of the board of directors? It looks like the C-level officers at that non-profit are the ones taking a salary, the board members all get $0.
It's common for members of the board to serve in similar capacities in other organizations, but not very common for the C-suite to do it, though of course it does happen.
That seems ridiculous. All while ICs are getting fired for having 2 jobs and making squat at either. I find it hard to believe that someone can hold so many positions and actually provide meaningful value to any of them.
Those board positions are likely high single digit hours per month commitments. Binge watching a Netflix show level time commitment so not exactly comparable to over-employment.
> His companies are doing fine and he's still super rich.
Tesla sales are down a lot , even as they give up margin to lower price in an effort to boost sales.
Twitter is not profitable, heavily indebted, and likely loosing a lot of traffic.
SpaceX is one of the most promising opportunities for him, and even that has huge structural risks due to clients being governments and is barely (rarely) profitable.
The boring company, neurolink, etc are barely real companies, they're just vanity projects for him.
Down from super high is still high. Still profitable company with an incredibly high market cap.
> Twitter is not profitable, heavily indebted, and likely loosing a lot of traffic.
Twitter's market cap hasn't change much. The perception of it losing value and being in trouble has a lot more to do with people's personal feeling (ironically expressed on X), rather than economics. It wasn't profitable when he bought it and it's not profitable now. It's still worth roughly what he bought it for.
> SpaceX is one of the most promising opportunities for him, and even that has huge structural risks due to clients being governments and is barely (rarely) profitable.
By your own admission, profitable and future projects are set to make it more even more profitable. Governments are the least risky clients there are.
> The boring company, neurolink, etc are barely real companies, they're just vanity projects for him.
That he spends relatively little money on, hardly worth mentioning, either positive or negative.
Tesla and Twitter are not doing fine. He's trying to get Tesla to agree to his original compensation bonus that was rejected by the Delaware courts. But that bonus was for bringing the valuation over $650 billion. The valuation has now dropped to under 500 billion
Musk's performance award included 12 tranches of stock options that were unlocked at $50b intervals from $100b to $650b of market cap, with a few other requirements. At Tesla's current price, 8 of the 12 tranches would still be unlocked.
That just means the owner of a single-member LLC, or sometimes the largest stakeholder for a multi-member LLC. It's not an unusual title for an LLC.
From reading her LinkedIn, it sounds like she's doing consulting and advising under an LLC instead of as an unincorporated sole proprietor. Again, really nothing unusual there, especially for the leader of a nonprofit.
For example, according to her linkedin, the CEO of WWC is also the Strategic Advisor of a banking company, an Advisory Board Member of 3 organizations including a university, and a Principal (?) of some LLC. Simultaneously.