Hacker News Reader

Comment by darthrupert | Hacker News Reader

I'll ask the question you're implying out loud.

Why does an organization with about 50 employees need 4 C-level executives, totalling about 2M compensation per year? Or perhaps it's 7 C-level executives (3 hiding under the "Software developer" title) totalling about 3,7M compensation per year?

I'm absolutely not donating money to such a thing without an answer to this question. As a counterpoint, I am a member of a local (Finnish) non-profit organization, one of whose many services is Matrix. This costs me 40 euros per year and none of that money goes to C-level executives.

View on HN

I find this hypocritical. C executives of tech orgs with world class products often have eight figures compensation -- if not from salary then from stock options. I do not see any excess here. You need to pay to compete.

And you get a world-class service that a lot of people can use for free and keeps their communication private in return. I'll happily keep donating for that.

I'm sure there are some costs that they could theoretically cut without consequence. Because the same holds for any other product I buy.

> I do not see any excess here. You need to pay to compete.

What you mean with pay to compete? The goal of Signal to exist is to offer a privacy oriented chat app. Non-profit companies serve a propose, and people not aligned with that, shouldn't be working there in the first place. If you join a non-profit to make money, you are doing it wrong.

So all the programmers who work there should live on thin air? I agree that ideally the management should not be there for profit, but come on, the salaries are not even that crazy. I suspect FAANG key employees in that area easily earn multiples of that.

> Signal is competing with for profit companies for talented engineers and their

> talented leaders.

In Bay Area? I'm quite sure you get great people all around the World, or in USA, by much less.

That line of thought is exactly why FAAMG companies tried to lower salaries for CoL when they opened up to more remote roles. I don't know if thst was fair, but it wasn't something appreciated by many engineers during the pandemic.

It's also how and why long ago they tried to outsource a lot of engineering. They still do try. But that's not an easy transition either.

> So all the programmers who work there should live on thin air?

We are talking about C*, Engineer Manager, getting almost 700k/year. Not developers.

Yes, so what's the problem?

> Yes, so what's the problem?

What is the problem of managers of a non-profit company earning around 700k/year and the company is writing blog posts complaining that the the company operation is too expensive? I think if you read it aloud, you will understand it.

When the numbers total $50m in operations and the CEO is making about as much as a principal Google engineer: no, I don't see the issue. Even if he made $0 the issue remains given that every part of the server operation costs more than him.

But sure. What do you think is a fair salary or totalccomp for a founder and CEO of a popular, privacy focused app?

> CEO is making about as much as a principal Google engineer

From a company living from donations... It is illusion (probably a California thing), to think that you are going to compete salary wise with FAANG. The time will tell (well their complaining about money, is already hinting it)...

But they aren't. A principal engineer is not a CEO but probably makes more at top companies.

I don't even work at a FAANG and I was making almost as much as the director there who lists 200k or so total comp. Probably with 20 years less experience to boot. I don't live in SF either; High CoL area but not SF.

That's why I asked you what's a "reasonable" salary. I'm wondering what your POV here is in terms of compensation.

Top European salary would be a third of that.

Signal is competing with for profit companies for talented engineers and their talented leaders. You can't just cobble together something "good enough", this thing must be airtight given some of the dangerous situations it is used in.

Indeed, I’m blown away these numbers are so low. I know multiple senior software engineers at FAANG companies who make more than the software engineers on that list, and they contribute roughly nothing to society. I have zero qualms with Signal executives and employees being paid at that level.

> We estimate that by 2025, Signal will require approximately $50 million dollars a year to operate

And from the link: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824...

- Other Salaries and Wages $9,665,761 - Executive Compensation $744,037

So about $10,400,000 a year in compensation and wages, or about 21% of their running costs.

So if I give 5 euros, 1 of this will go to salaries. I'd say not terrible. I wouldn't be surprised if most charities are worse.

One just have to get over the feeling that I'm donating to a charity of people who make 50x more money than I do with a comparable skill set.

2M in comp distributed between 4 people is not a lot at this scale in my opinion.

For a nonprofit?

A nonprofit doesn't mean it's a charity.

A nonprofit asking for donations because of <good cause>? What is the definition of a charity then?

> 501(c)(3) tax-exemptions apply to entities that are organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes, for testing for public safety, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

Signal foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3). It is literally and legally a charity.

Charities aren't charities in the colloquial sense of the word. It's not a truly altruistic collaboration of volunteers giving their time to help a cause.

Non-profit simply means that every bit of revenue made goes back into the company instead of given out to shareholders. Which includes paying your labor.

It being a non-profit is exactly why we can view the operating expenses and salaries of the public facing executives. For accountability.

It is for a non-profit asking for donations. If they want half a mill salaries, they should become for-profit instead.

The beauty of non profits is everyone thinks they're staffed with saints, when the truth is far less beatific.

Absolutely. A former student of mine worked for a non profit in Afghanistan (his home country) for a few years. Said non profit was flying in McKinsey consultants for very short gigs at six figures (USD).

Same can be said about many LGBT non profits that have shifted their goals in the developed world on the "T" part of the acronym. On countries where marriage equality is a given, no one is going to fund an NGO focused on gay marriage... so they need a new cause to fight for.

to me this smells transphobic but it's possible the trans genocide several US states are working on made me oversensitive

How is it transphobic to say organizations focused on LGBTQ shifted their alignment for the one part that isn't widely accepted in developed because others for the most part are?

Its a transphobic conspiracy theory to say, as moravak1984 explicitly did upthread, that they did it for money not because its an actual real issue where they perceive an injustice, whereas the issues where they've already won, and thus are shifting some attention from, are not, or less so, specifically because they have succeeded in shifting the situation on the ground.

Why is it transphobic? Is it not possible for an organization to do something for money? I am not accusing any particular organization of doing so, but it absolutely should be a legitimate concern/question.

In fact, I would consider it transphobic to not call out organizations with ulterior motives.

The reply to my suspicion from the same person was so transphobic it got removed. I can smell these people from a mile away. Fragments of it survive in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301956

The reply to my suspicion was so transphobic it got removed. I can smell these people from a mile away. Fragments of it survive in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38301956

My reply was calling out your ridiculous and hyperbolic claims of "genocide", and examining the reality behind the euphemism.

Profit or non-profit is not about paying market rates. Even non-profits have to pay reasonably competitive salaries to attract and retain good employees.

Yeah but half of these should be competitive enough. Come on.

Competitive is just fine and even expected, but competitive vs FAANG? Seriously?

we ought to be well past this, if they want to be donation based they need efficiency.

it's possible to run this from, let's say, Andalusia, and hire competent folks for a fraction of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com