Then at this point I start to wonder: why can’t they take people in countries where the cost of living is cheaper? When you’re funded by donations, this seems more logical
I feel like companies based in the USA and accepting donations make it so that donations from countries outside USA are a lot less meaningfull because we get less money, and they need to spend more.
CEO don’t just run company. Their job is also to determine strategy and work relationships to improve sales/donations. They should be hired wherever they can do that best.
Listed salaries are almost always what the employee pays, not what it costs the company. In the US, this includes the payroll tax, and cost of “benefits,” like healthcare and unemployment insurance, and is referred to as the burdened rate. This is separate from the income tax the employee has to pay to the government, mind you.
The burdened rate for most employees at the companies I’ve worked for in the US is like 20-50% higher than the salary paid. Not sure exactly how it works in France, but I do know there’s a pretty complex payroll tax companies have to pay. I think it’s something like 40% at the salary you quoted.
Pretty much the same in France. Companies pay 150% to 200% of the amount that the employee receives, when the employee has a relatively high pay, and the employee then pays a significant amount of its pay in diverse things, then the income tax hits. France is pretty much one of the countries that taxes the most in the world so…
And a 80k$ salary in France amounts to around 125k$ cost for the employer.
So 170k$ isn’t that much - I actually know French developers and network engineers that make similar money.
The French ITsec architect I interviewed last year would have cost me (converted) around 150k$.
So 170k$ is absolutely not out of the normal range here.
Talking about France: The French government could start to properly support matrix.org as they use it for tChap. The same goes for Germany with the “Behördenmessenger”
Indeed, but it’s understandably a super high amount compared to what we get. If you’re in good shape, you get way more money. If not, you probably get (a lot) less.
Right. For perspective, I once paid $200 for a single Xray (needed 3, total $600, not counting the doctors bill). And that’s with health insurance.
If you have to go to urgent care, expect to pay close to $1000 for simple needs, much higher than that for more complex needs. An ambulance ride can cost upwards of $5000, and an airlift is several times that.
So better not be too much into sports, or trauma will drain your bank account.
Then you add the complete absence of consumers rights and little to no oversight on industrial activity. Lead and PFA poisoned water, food additives that are banned in most of the developed world, sugar in everything,… It’s near impossible not to get sick here.
You can’t at all compare unless you reference cost and standard of living. I’ve managed and hired people in multiple countries. It’s not as simple as salary X exchange rate.
Cost of living in the UK is about 12% lower than the US, including housing costs. But the average salary is about half of the US salary. So you can see that that doesn’t really cover it.
Sure, but that applies to the UK too. London has a higher cost of living than Los Angeles; averages being averages, this is weighed against lots of cheaper places to live (with massive unemployment and stagnated economics).
Why would someone choose a more stressful job for the same pay?
Because they don’t have a choice? Holy shit, you people are so disconnected from reality it’s not even funny.
People work significantly harder than this CEO for significantly less. If the CEO was forced to make less money, he could still do the job without an issue. But why would he when useful idiots will defend him making more?
If he’s not willing to do the job for less, then someone else would be willing to take over his role considering how many people already work way harder for way less.
I’m sure a roofer would gladly be willing to take over my job as well.
Do you think there are no requirements to being a CEO? Do you think you could do it? I’m wondering how deep this justice fantasy goes. Do you think we’d get a competent CEO at minimum wage?
Do you think we can’t get a competent CEO for less than $170k/year? If so, why?
We can, considering how many people work harder for less. There’s nothing particularly difficult or unique about this guys’ position that justifies his salary. The only reason he’s able to get it is because suckers like you are willing to pay for it.
I’m going to ignore you now. Tools are never going to learn from their mistakes or recognize how they’re being played.
170k for running a company? Shit. I wouldn’t do that. You can make just as much being a halfway competent developer, and it’s way less stress.
I guess you live in the USA? No one makes this amount of money
A Senior Developer in any major city makes that amount of money.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/senior-developer-salary-SRCH_KO0,16.htm
Funnily enough, it shows the localised amount.
For me in France it shows 50k€ to 69k€, so $58k to $80k at current exchange rates
It just confirms that this is USA only haha
Btw glassdoor sucks. Forces you to have an account and register work shit
You can’t just look at the exchange rate. You have to look at cost and standard of living.
Someone in the US making 100k is not doing as well as someone in France making 70k€
Then at this point I start to wonder: why can’t they take people in countries where the cost of living is cheaper? When you’re funded by donations, this seems more logical
I feel like companies based in the USA and accepting donations make it so that donations from countries outside USA are a lot less meaningfull because we get less money, and they need to spend more.
You’ve basically just reinvented off shoring.
CEO don’t just run company. Their job is also to determine strategy and work relationships to improve sales/donations. They should be hired wherever they can do that best.
Doing better until you happen to incur a medical emergency, then bankrupt.
Listed salaries are almost always what the employee pays, not what it costs the company. In the US, this includes the payroll tax, and cost of “benefits,” like healthcare and unemployment insurance, and is referred to as the burdened rate. This is separate from the income tax the employee has to pay to the government, mind you.
The burdened rate for most employees at the companies I’ve worked for in the US is like 20-50% higher than the salary paid. Not sure exactly how it works in France, but I do know there’s a pretty complex payroll tax companies have to pay. I think it’s something like 40% at the salary you quoted.
seems like there’s a problem here?
Pretty much the same in France. Companies pay 150% to 200% of the amount that the employee receives, when the employee has a relatively high pay, and the employee then pays a significant amount of its pay in diverse things, then the income tax hits. France is pretty much one of the countries that taxes the most in the world so…
Plus you have to add in the amortized cost of legal, HR, etc for employees.
Not a big deal for 1-2 employees, but as you scale you need support employees
And a 80k$ salary in France amounts to around 125k$ cost for the employer. So 170k$ isn’t that much - I actually know French developers and network engineers that make similar money. The French ITsec architect I interviewed last year would have cost me (converted) around 150k$.
So 170k$ is absolutely not out of the normal range here.
Talking about France: The French government could start to properly support matrix.org as they use it for tChap. The same goes for Germany with the “Behördenmessenger”
If that’s the amount the company pays, then yea. If this is the amount the employee receives, then that’s a lot. Like really.
As we are looking at the company expenditures here, it’s the former.
Why would it display the priced paid by the company like this, when it doesn’t for other countries like France though? Seems weird
Unless USA companies don’t pay taxes when paying a salary? But I don’t really believe that
Nah, my bad, the later. Sorry
80k plus all of society’s trappings of France. Dude, it’s not even a comparison. Worker’s rights, healthcare, public transit, safety, security…
Indeed, but it’s understandably a super high amount compared to what we get. If you’re in good shape, you get way more money. If not, you probably get (a lot) less.
Good shape? I think something got lost in translation.
I meant good health, no (mental) illness, no medical treatment, already have somewhere to live…
Right. For perspective, I once paid $200 for a single Xray (needed 3, total $600, not counting the doctors bill). And that’s with health insurance.
If you have to go to urgent care, expect to pay close to $1000 for simple needs, much higher than that for more complex needs. An ambulance ride can cost upwards of $5000, and an airlift is several times that.
So better not be too much into sports, or trauma will drain your bank account.
Then you add the complete absence of consumers rights and little to no oversight on industrial activity. Lead and PFA poisoned water, food additives that are banned in most of the developed world, sugar in everything,… It’s near impossible not to get sick here.
Just looked on that link for the UK. The average is listed as £63k, which is $85k.
So you’re not exactly disproving the point that that type of high salary is a US thing.
You can’t at all compare unless you reference cost and standard of living. I’ve managed and hired people in multiple countries. It’s not as simple as salary X exchange rate.
Cost of living in the UK is about 12% lower than the US, including housing costs. But the average salary is about half of the US salary. So you can see that that doesn’t really cover it.
Source: https://livingcost.org/cost/united-kingdom/united-states
I hate that people treat the US like a country. It’s bad for statistics.
The cost of living in New Jersey is 50% higher than Alabama, for example, using the site you linked. Averages across the US are near meaningless.
Since I’m talking about tech jobs, we should compare to states with lots of tech jobs, and we might get a better comparison.
Sure, but that applies to the UK too. London has a higher cost of living than Los Angeles; averages being averages, this is weighed against lots of cheaper places to live (with massive unemployment and stagnated economics).
It must not be that stressful if you have $170k leftover to pay yourself.
Most people work more stressful jobs for considerably less. We should stop giving CEOs a pass.
This shouldn’t need to be said, but most people are useful idiots so here we are.
You’re missing the point. There are easier jobs in the same industry for the same pay.
We’re not comparing tech CEO to roofers. We’re comparing them to other people in tech.
Uhh, no.
This is directly the point: Most people work more stressful jobs for considerably less. We should stop giving CEOs a pass.
Oh, and don’t forget about this one!
Still not getting it I think.
Why would someone choose a more stressful job for the same pay?
This does not imply a lack of more stressful jobs that pay less. Obviously every idiot would take an easier job that pays more if they could.
I didn’t forget. I chose to ignore it because it makes you look tacky and I’m being polite. But if you insist on pressing the point, there you go.
Because they don’t have a choice? Holy shit, you people are so disconnected from reality it’s not even funny.
People work significantly harder than this CEO for significantly less. If the CEO was forced to make less money, he could still do the job without an issue. But why would he when useful idiots will defend him making more?
If he’s not willing to do the job for less, then someone else would be willing to take over his role considering how many people already work way harder for way less.
Thanks for proving my last point right, again.
I’m sure a roofer would gladly be willing to take over my job as well.
Do you think there are no requirements to being a CEO? Do you think you could do it? I’m wondering how deep this justice fantasy goes. Do you think we’d get a competent CEO at minimum wage?
Turn the argument on yourself.
Do you think we can’t get a competent CEO for less than $170k/year? If so, why?
We can, considering how many people work harder for less. There’s nothing particularly difficult or unique about this guys’ position that justifies his salary. The only reason he’s able to get it is because suckers like you are willing to pay for it.
I’m going to ignore you now. Tools are never going to learn from their mistakes or recognize how they’re being played.
It’s why things are the way they are.
No, I don’t think you can get a competent CEO for less than 200k in the tech sector.