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.

Oh, and don't forget about this one!

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.

I have no clue where in the world he resides. I'm just trying and failing to clue you in on how the world works.

No, you're trying to defend the profit's of others without realizing how they're taking advantage of your naivete.

Honestly, trying to explain things to useful idiots really is a fool's errand. The best I can do is make it clear as day for anyone with a brain how much of a sucker the average internet user is now.

Goodbye. I'm going to ignore you. I'm tired of arguing with tools.

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

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.

Thanks for proving my last point right, again.

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€

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.

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.

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.

80k plus all of society's trappings of France. Dude, it's not even a comparison. Worker's rights, healthcare, public transit, safety, security...

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.

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"

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€

So 170k$ isn’t that much

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.

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.

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.