[codekisser]

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.

[karaterobot]

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.

[giantg2]

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.

[esses]

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.

[giantg2]

Seems like a nightmare for context switching and staying abreast of the background info specific to each org.

[Atotalnoob]

For what they get paid? Nah.

Looking where I work, the board members get 125k+ salary and 300k stock.

They could just hire people to give them a TLDR before each meeting

[giantg2]

I'm skeptical they could perform well even with someone giving them notes.

[makapuf]

With enough context, is this a job that could be replaced by an AI ? Of course there is the question of who will supervise and legal responsibilities.

[ohthatsnotright]

Musk is showing that it really is impossible to do it all, but the rules don't apply to C-suite.

[parineum]

Is he?

His companies are doing fine and he's still super rich.

[vineyardmike]

> 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.

[parineum]

> Tesla sales are down a lot

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.

[vineyardmike]

> Still profitable company with an incredibly high market cap

A market cap that has more than halved in the last year. And market cap isn’t everything. Plummeting sales amid higher competition, layoffs, etc don’t paint a great picture.

> Twitter's market cap hasn't change much

Since what time period? Since after he shaved 70% of it off? [1]. It wasn’t and still isn’t profitable, yes, but it now has a far higher debt load and a drop in advertising revenues which make it worth less.

> profitable and future projects are set to make it more even more profitable.

Oh I said rarely and barely profitable. That doesn’t imply much profit, nor potential. It has promise, yes, but clear profits… no. Sorry for the confusion. They turned a profit only for one quarter. The structural risks are due to government subsidies that can (and are) being pulled from SpaceX. Starlink has been a huge boom to its revenue, but those subsidies were part of that. His errant behavior could jeopardize additional contracts (eg his drug use).

> hardly worth mentioning

The trail of headline worthy businesses are worth mentioning because they add to his allure and image. That they have little business potential, amount to trivial cost to him, and are for vanity, makes them meaningless.

1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/01/since-elon-musks...

[shaklee3]

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

[FreakLegion]

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.

[ohthatsnotright]

Which occurred primarily before he took over Twitter and ran it into the ground while at the same time tanking the goodwill people had for Tesla.

It really seems unlikely one human can split themselves between so many projects and keep all of them successful unless they dis-engage from a few and let those they hired run the show (mostly how he's behaved with SpaceX). If the person is like this they likely don't deserve the sort of compensation talked about in this article.

[shaklee3]

Not true. Read Matt Levine's article from 3 days ago

[evanelias]

> and a Principal (?) of some LLC

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.