Those high paying positions that came with all the perks need to be unlearned. Many of those folk will have trouble adjusting to lower pay and lesser perks. Such companies might not be willing to risk hiring them.
You can't close Pandora's box and expect the world to remain unchanged.
Bigger tech companies and winner-take-all markets means bigger salaries and more perks to attract top talent when the stakes are so high. The next big arms race is AI. You can be sure tech companies are offering huge salaries for top talent there too.
If Zukerberg took 0 it would save about 1500 per laid off person. Tech is generally cutting costs at a large enough number that C-suite compensation packages couldn't cover it.
You could layoff a hundred fewer people and cut Zuck to 0 for the same savings.
> Meta’s board declared that the 40% increase was “appropriate and necessary under the circumstances” and was in place “to address safety concerns due to specific threats to his safety arising directly as a result of his position as Meta’s founder, chairman, and CEO”.
> The tech mogul’s salary is just $1 a year – but his earnings are far more. Zuckerberg ranks as the 16th richest person in the world on the Forbes billionaire list due to his shareholdings in Meta. In 2021 he received compensation from the company worth $27m.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/12/mark_zuckerberg_gets_...
> There were no bonus or stock awards given to Zuckerberg in 2019, 2020, or 2021, but that "other" amount increased by nearly $2 million each year. The bulk of this goes to pay for the Zuckerberg family's security at home and while traveling, even for personal reasons.
> Zuckerberg and COO Cheryl Sandberg both get an allowance for personal and family security, which Meta said is necessary to address specific threats to their safety. "We require these security measures for the company's benefit because of the importance of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg to Meta, and we believe that the scope and costs of these security programs are appropriate and necessary," the proxy statement said.
> Zuckerberg is in the unique position, Meta said, of being synonymous with the company because of the size of its user base and its continued presence thanks to less-than-positive legal and media attention. "As a result, negative sentiment regarding our company is directly associated with, and often transferred to, Mr Zuckerberg."
During the pandemic the Fed slashed interest rates, giving companies more money so they can hire more people and keep unemployment down.
Then the Fed raised interest rates, forcing companies to lay people off to save money, so we can increase unemployment to fight inflation.
You could argue that Facebook's management could have predicted the Fed's rate hikes. Then they could have refused to hire people for new projects because they might have to cut those projects later. I don't think that's better.
Twitter laid off most of the company and they still limp along somehow