From the 990s, it seems Mitchell took out $32,683,642 over the eight years from 2016 to 2023. With 2024 included, she could well top $38M -- not too shabby!
Of course not, why should the CEO be forced to use last year's model of yacht? Frankly I don't know how anyone lives with less than ten million these days.
If the store clerk took home some of the supplies, what would the impact on the company's balance sheet be? Not significant but she'd be setting the wrong example by doing so. If the CEO of a non-profit insists on "pay equity" with her for-profit equivalents she should look for a job in a for-profit, not leach dry the non-profit. Enough of the bullshit with overpaid and underperforming Mozilla CEOs, time for a real change there. I propose Mozilla creates a DOME department - Dept. of Mozilla Efficiency - which goes through the organisation, top to bottom. Make Mozilla concentrate on its core tasks again, i.e. creating and maintaining browsers to serve as bulwark against the Blink-Webkit duopoly. More developers, fewer executives, more releases, fewer distractions, Make Mozilla Great Again!
I broadly agree, though then the argument would be "well the best CEOs would go to for-profit places", and we might get worse CEOs leading the non-profits; if we had the non-profit pay for-profit wages, then they might be more appealing to more talented people.
I'm not sure I actually agree with this argument, to be clear. I don't even know that I think the CEO does all that much; Elon Musk is the CEO of like three or four companies while also leading a government agency, indicating to me that "CEO" is not a difficult job, so I don't know that we necessarily need "the best" CEO anyway.
People like Musk, Jobs, Edison and others are valuable because they see future possibilities - not pipe dreams but real possibilities - and turn their attention towards realising those goals by putting together teams of people who stand a chance to get there. Some of them - Musk and Edison in this list - do some of the work themselves, others - Jobs - are more 'visionary leaders' who somehow manage to inspire or scare others towards achieving the goal. Once the company is up and running these types of leaders tend to look elsewhere to break new ground because the day-to-day grind of running those companies is not their thing.
Mozilla does not need to find future possibilities, it got its goals handed to it by Marc Andreessen via Netscape: create and maintain a browser. The task of a non-profit CEO is to make sure the company remains funded. This takes a different type of person, someone who has or manages to create contacts within places where money is to be found. The last series of Mozilla CEOs saw this differently, these women convinced themselves that they were there to 'change the world' by means of pushing ideologically loaded programs and propaganda onto it. They considered the true reason for being of their organisation - create and maintain a browser which competes against the duopoly by giving control back to the user - no more than a means to get the funding for their ideological crusade. They also increased their own piece of the pie markedly in the process in some strange realisation of Orwell's All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than the others quote.
Elon Musk personifies the CEO who doesn't develop things (he infamously did not found Tesla, but purchased the right to say he did). Musk has used his power to push his personal and political ideologies on the world. I've never seen any other human receive more attention than the president of the United States during the president's first interview. Musk owns, runs and censors the "de facto public town square" as he sees fit.
You can criticize Mozilla's "women" for being political, but Elon Musk is the most politically active and powerful CEO in the world, possibly of all time.
The CEO receiving a salary that was agreed upon through negotiation is very different from shoplifting and I hope that you can see that and come up with a better analogy.
It's different, I don't think they're claiming that it's directly equivalent, but they were responding to the claim that "7 million isn't significant in the grand scheme of things", and they're arguing that "just because it might not be a significant number doesn't necessarily mean we just let it slide".
I don't think anyone is accusing the Mozilla CEO of "stealing" the money.
I think you will find that CEOs either have a significant share of the company, or are the lackeys of someone who does. In other words the only "negotiation" they did was negotiating with themselves.
Probably not very significant, though it's always frustrating when you read about mass layoffs at these corporations, only to see that the executives are all still getting raises and bonuses.
Business used to consider it equally important that employees, customers and shareholders were all happy. Frankly, it is easy to see that on the level of an entire economy, unless all 3 are happy, disasters are unavoidable.
But now every company thinks they can force everything on customers (idiotic ideas like "self-care"), the government, or even just the environment, usually doing enormous damage for 1/100th of that damage in gains.
At least we can rest assured of one thing: this trend WILL end. Through rational thinking? Through tears? Through violence? Through total catastrophe? That's the question. But end it will. Guaranteed.
From the 990s, it seems Mitchell took out $32,683,642 over the eight years from 2016 to 2023. With 2024 included, she could well top $38M -- not too shabby!
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43112590. 2024 will be the last big comp year for Mitchell.