undefined | Better HN

0 pointslaweijfmvo2y ago0 comments

> She also went years taking annual salary lower than she probably should have been taking. It frankly wouldn't be unreasonable to grant her lifetime emeritus status that comes with a no-strings-attached $1–2 million annual salary to sit on her hands and do nothing.

Sorry, what? She was underpaid for a few years, so should get a couple mil forever now? Can you at least list out the "several important things?"

0 comments

kbrosnan2y ago

It is closer to 20 years. She was a founding member of Mozilla. Look back at the early financial statements, in a vacuum a few 100k to several 100k sounds like a lot. When you compare it to other executives in the Bay Area or the US she was significantly under paid compared to peers. Especially when considering stock options. What would it cost Mozilla to hire someone else?

Before someone here says that they would be the CEO for less money than Mitchell. Can you get an appointment with the vice president of search at Google and Microsoft? Could you call their bosses and get though?

FactKnower692y ago

>Before someone here says that they would be the CEO for less money than Michael. Can you get an appointment with the vice president of search at Google and Microsoft? Could you call their bosses and get though?

I'm sorry? My entire life I've been told that CEOs make 1000x as much money as me for golfing and writing a couple emails a week because they're genius Ubermenschen whose illuminating strategic insights add orders of magnitude more value than my measly toil, but you're telling me it's actually because other executives are willing to take cold calls from them? That's why?

sjfjsjdjwvwvc2y ago

IMO it’s mostly because it’s a miserable job that few would be willing to do. I at least wouldn’t, no matter how many millions they throw at me - even disregarding all the career ladder climbing that is needed to be considered for such a role in the first place.

teg4n_2y ago

If they were the CEO of Mozilla they would because that’s the whole point of talking to them.

sydbarrett742y ago

One difference is that Google is a for-profit, publicly-traded company. Mozilla is a sort of hybrid in the sense that the Corporation is wholly owned by a non-profit Foundation. Most people don't go into the non-profit sector to get rich. Their utility comes from something else (e.g., goodwill or a sense of noblesse oblige).

iraqmtpizza2y ago

Either I or Adam Sandler could get an appointment with the VP of search at any company in the world if we were CEO of literally Mozilla

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse