this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
1215 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

73878 readers
3564 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] haloduder@thelemmy.club 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Profit can be distorted based on how much employees are being paid.

They're a "non-profit," but their CEO makes millions of dollars per year. I'd say that's a profit.

Believing otherwise is just falling for rhetoric that exists to take advantage of our naivete so people richer than us can be even richer.

Many of you will disagree with this (because you're greedy consumerists), but their employees also typically don't need to be paid nearly as much as they are. Their employees are also working to maximize profit, albeit from a different, less-effective angle.

Money brings out the worst in people. I don't really value the input of people going to bat for the businessmen taking their money. Too often I see useful idiots proud to be ripped off and getting angry whenever someone points it out. It's really the norm at this point, which is sad.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Calling whatever you like "profit" cant really be rebutted, it's subjective semantics.

Yes CEOs are paid lots of money. Why would mozilla choose to over pay staff?

[–] piefood@feddit.online 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Are you really asking why would the people at the top of an organization choose to overpay themselves?

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry boss it's kinda laughable to suggest they choose their own salaries.

Obviously it would be negotiated, with a panel overseeing the procurement and hiring process.

That panel has no interest in overpaying executives. Obviously they would pay just enough to secure someone with the right network and skills. Just because they earn more than you does not mean they're overpaid.

[–] piefood@feddit.online 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Oh, so they and their friends are part of a panel that chooses each others salaries? I wonder how that ends up with everyone getting bloated salaries. Such a mystery.

It doesn't take a genious to figure this out. Look at executive salaries from other companies. They are clearly over-compensated on average.

Just because they earn more than you does not mean they're overpaid.

I don't care that they make more than me. I care that their salary keeps going up, while Firefox's market-share keeps going down, and the product keeps getting worse.