908
Total 2022 pay: $6,903,089
Total 2023 pay: $6,260,072 - a $643,017 decrease
Base chair pay: $600,000
2023 chair bonuses and other incentives: $5,622,600
Sources:
For comparison, here are other executive salaries ($0 bonuses for each)
| Executive name | Title | Total Pay (2023) |
|---|---|---|
| MARK SURMAN | PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR | 715,143 |
| J. BOB ALOTTA | SVP, GLOBAL PROGRAMS | 508,138 |
| ANGELA PLOHMAN | COO, SECRETARY & TREASURER | 452,234 |
| ASHLEY BOYD | SVP, GLOBAL ADVOCACY | 427,701 |
| ZHILUN PANG | DIRECTOR OF FINANCE | 273,069 |
| DAVID WALKER | SENIOR COUNSEL | 268,565 |
| LAINIE DECOURSY | DIRECTOR, ORG EFFECTIVENESS | 267,028 |
| JUAN BARANI | SENIOR DIRECTOR, GIFT PLANNING | 262,879 |
| STEPHANIE WRIGHT | SR PROGRAM MANAGER, MOZFEST | 236,785 |
This graph shows a disingenuous relationship between revenue and the market share of a free and open source project within the walls of a not-for-profit organization. Firefox is not a revenue stream in the traditional sense. In fact, most of Mozilla 's money comes from grants and donations for projects and research they do.
I get that CEO=EVIL is a viral topic these days but if all you know about Mozilla is that they make the Not Chrome browser, then you should really educate yourself on what it is that Mozilla actually does for the internet. Then you might feel a little better with this pay scale graph.
That all aside, this graph shows the market share of Mozilla when there were 5 browsers available to the vast majority of users, Internet Explorer, Firefox, chrome, Opera, and safari. It's also before chrome took over the market share from IE at the same time that it pushed out Firefox as the leading browser because chrome was available on the iPhone and was the default browser on Android devices. Hardly a surprise to see that when the internet exploded in users and literally every human being started to carry around a chrome device in their pockets that Mozilla Firefox's market share went down.
The Mozilla foundation's largest source of revenue is Google, who is also their largest source of competition. To simply keep increasing the pay of their chief executive officer, to keep them kissing the ass of Google, seems like a strategy that doesn't align with what many would consider metrics of a successful project, like active users........
Looks like you missed the point of the graph.
Graph doesn't even show active users. It shows market share which is totally different. Market share is percentage of total users regardless of how many users are out there. Active users can go up while market share goes down. That's why this graph is disingenuous.
How much money do they actually spend on the development of Firefox? That's a figure I haven't been able to find. However, in 2023, they had $1.5 billion in assets.
The only justification for a high-paying CEO is if they need to coordinate some large scale fundraising effort - schmoozing with other rich fucks to gain further donations, and plotting elaborate strategies to get more donations.
They have $1.5 billion in assets. How much more do they really need? Need someone to manage Mozilla's assets? Make me the CEO. I'll do it for you. In fact, I'll do it for free. That will be my contribution to the Firefox project. I'll stick that $1.5 billion in simple bond and index funds and withdraw at a very conservative 2% rate. And that will provide $30 million a year to spend on developers to improve Firefox and other projects. And we can just keep doing that forever. I'll purposefully withdraw funds at a rate lower than the market averages, so the real value of the endowment grows over time. And that will allow us to slowly expand the scope of operations and start new projects. And while I won't spend any time or effort to schmooze and jet set across the country to kiss the ass of some billionaire, if one wants to throw some money in the pot, we'll have a donation button on the website.
What a self serving wank fest
Even if he made the air suck everyone's dick and chocolate pudding rain from the sky, he shouldn't have seven million US dollars every year
700k is high for us but low for CEO pay... I don't see why CEOs should get as much money when they never have any liability but that's another question. (Or... what are they really good for, and couldn't they simply be replaced by the decision matrix their team builds for them anyways)
CEO of a major company? Sounds like reasonable pay to me... The problem is that most workers are not getting paid what they deserve (assume this is correct pay for a top level CEO and adjust your thinking on what fair pay actually is accordingly) It's not the CEOs (or doctors, lawyers, actors, etc) who are the root problem... It's the kids born with a billion shares of fortune 500 stock who either grow up to be Trump/Elon or just do fuck all their whole life, but still get to rake in 90% of all "profits". The people who inherited owning the whole world, they are the problem. The CEOs are just assholes willing to work for the people born into wealth... They still suck, and they uphold the shit system for their own benefit, but I don't think they are hoarding the wealth, and I think the wealth being hoarded is the ultimate problem.
The average salary in the US is about 66k, meaning that for this to be justified it makes sense that one man gets the same compensation as about 105 average salaries. Does it still sound like reasonable pay?
Sounds like those 105 employees aren't being paid what they should be. Pay them more. Leave this guy's pay alone.
Personally I'd say, if top level CEO pay is $6.5m, and we set that as reasonable pay for that level job, and maybe we say the top should earn 20x the bottom, then the average pay in the US should be $325k. Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Stop thinking in terms of dragging the top down... Think in terms of lifting everyone else up. If the owners need to own less for this to happen, then so be it
"Just pay everyone more" is nice idea - but obviously that would require a lot of additional money. Whereas "lower CEO pay and raise employee pay" does not require additional money.
Lower profits, pay workers more
reasonable point but firefox is hardly better off if you look at only desktop share
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-200901-202411
You are misinformed too.
This is only about the Mozilla Corporation. Hence, "the ones that make Firefox".
The ones fighting for an open Internet are the Mozilla Foundation.
The Mozilla corporation are whole owned by the Mozilla Foundation... They are the same company. And both are not-for-profit.
What @Atemu@lemmy.ml wrote. It's hard to grasp for me too, but ~~apparently~~ it's allowed in the US, and even a very spread practice.
No that's the trick: Mozilla corp is for-profit.