Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Details Executive Salaries, Bonuses

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the deep-pockets dept.

Facebook 168

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook has detailed the pay of 27-year-old Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as well as four other executives. These are people who are set to be billionaires at least on paper when the company goes public as part of its $5 billion initial public offering (IPO). All five individuals are in line for annual target bonuses of 45 percent of their salary plus other base wages. For Zuckerberg, the bonus could amount to roughly $225,000 this year, based on his annual salary of $500,000."

cancel ×

168 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Buy Buy Buy! (3, Insightful)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008301)

It worked for Tom Anderson and Rupert Murdoch, what could possibly go wrong!

I don't want to know (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008313)

Period.

$0.45 (0)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008317)

next year, his salary is $1

And we care because? (-1, Redundant)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008347)

useless tool makes a pile of money fucking everyone else in the world news at 11

Re:And we care because? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008677)

I agree, this is news for Nerds, not news for people interested in becoming wealthy through various means including nefarious or even slightly shady.

Re:And we care because? (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009025)

Speak for yourself!

Re:And we care because? (2)

wisty (1335733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009133)

useless tool makes a pile of money fucking everyone else in the world news at 11

Given the size of the company, and number of customers, $275k for a General Council or Head Engineer, $300k for a COO, and $500k for a CEO (plus potential 45% bonuses for all) is a pretty fair deal. Theses guys work long, hard hours, and have a lot of responsibility.

Re:And we care because? (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009849)

I guarantee you they are not working more than thrice as many hours, and take less risk than I do.

Re:And we care because? (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009923)

It's not Zuck's fault you're underpaid.

Their "low" salaries are concerning... (5, Funny)

moozey (2437812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008369)

FTFA "These salaries of course don’t take into account the executives’ stocks in the social networking giant. If you were worried their salaries are on the low side, don’t be."

Oh thank god! I can finally sleep easy tonight. Phew!

Re:Their "low" salaries are concerning... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008993)

no one gives a fuck what you think. go suck another dick and cry about whitney "mooncricket" houston overdosing on exlax.

What? (1)

paxprobellum (2521464) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008373)

I thought Zuck's salary was $1? What happened to that?

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008417)

That was Steve Jobs' salary... :-)

Re:What? (2)

sackvillian (1476885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008461)

Zuckerberg's new one as well. [wired.com]

Specially designed to inspire shareholder confidence if you're a believer, or to lower his tax bracket if you're a cynic.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008515)

Those cynics are idiots. His dividend/capital gains are going to be the same whether he has a salary or not. So yeah, he'd have to pay more taxes if he made more money, but he'd... wait for it... make more money!

The cynics are right in cases where the employee takes a salary cut but is instead compensated in some other way which is taxed at a lower level.

Re:What? (5, Informative)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008635)

Those cynics are idiots. His dividend/capital gains are going to be the same whether he has a salary or not. So yeah, he'd have to pay more taxes if he made more money, but he'd... wait for it... make more money! The cynics are right in cases where the employee takes a salary cut but is instead compensated in some other way which is taxed at a lower level.

Bonuses in shares instead of salary are just such compensation taxed at a very low rate and the employee can borrow against the stocks and still come out ahead of paying taxes. The executive is happy. The bank is happy. The government and the people who expect taxation to be fair and just... screwed.

Re:What? (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009103)

Yes, there are many tricks like that. I can't write-off the miles on my second car even though the only reason we have a second car is so that I can get to work. Yet my VP can drive around in a company car and the company can write it off.

But that's not the sort of thing we are talking about here. The man holds billions worth of Facebook stock... any dip (or rise) in stock price is of far more concern to him than all the incentive packages the board could possibly come up with. He already has motivation to work as hard as he is capable of for the company. Do I think he has a great accountant? I'm sure of it. Do I think that he took the $1 salary because it would be good for the stock price and not because it could save him a few hundred thousand (or even million) in taxes? Yes, I'm quite certain that was his rationale.

Re:What? (1)

ExploHD (888637) | more than 2 years ago | (#39010053)

I'm sure that he's more concerned about dividends than the valuation. With 533.8 million shares and, let's say, 10 cents quarterly dividend dispersments, he could have made $53,380,000 every three months. At a 15% tax rate with no FICA (medicaid, 1.45%; social security 6.2%), it's the ultimate tax dodge.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009651)

But when he collects Social Security, he'll earn that at a lower rate, so won't make as much. I suspect that won't bother him much. Guys like me, who retired years ago, only get a pittance compared to someone retiring now.

Re:What? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008703)

Salary is subject to FICA taxes (7.2%+-) up to $106,800 or so. As his salary was $500,000, his effective FICA tax rate was only 1.4% or so. Seems like a trivial amount to me, but then again, the rich are different than us. For example, they do everything possible to reduce their tax burden and then complain that it's too low.

Re:What? (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009051)

You'd have to be a weird sort of dude to give charity to the federal government.

I reduce my tax burden as much as is legal, so I don't think the rich are all that "different" on that particular score.

Re:What? (3, Interesting)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009173)

You'd have to be a weird sort of dude to give charity to the federal government.

Wow! I didn't realize it was charity to pay taxes, given it's taxes that provide services oneself enjoys* but, if wealthy enough, services that others enjoy as well. Well, I guess it is charity in the sense that it means potentially paying more than you get out for the benefit of others. Personally, I'd just consider that a common duty of anyone with the means towards humanity. But, then, I take that from the idea that just because you're not a completely selfish dick and rose above doing the absolute minimum when it comes to contributing to the world doesn't make your actions charity.

I reduce my tax burden as much as is legal, so I don't think the rich are all that "different" on that particular score.

When the tax laws are rewritten so that "reduce my tax burden as much as is legal" is pretty fluid on the word "legal" precisely because you money can more or less help buy what "legal" is, I think "that particular score" is very different. That's precisely why Warren Buffet bitched about the point that capital gains taxes are so ludicrously low, given it's precisely the rich that have the means to have so much of their assets tied up in stock and hence benefit from such an effectively low income tax rate. I mean, I don't know about you, but when companies require you to buy at least 1,000 shares of stock and stocks sell for at least $1, it's easy to see why the average person isn't going to buy much in the way of stock. Hell, when middle and upper middle class people started actually buying stocks directly (as day traders), their was an incredible amount of bitching and moaning from the rich (through a receptive media) precisely because their actions were causing disruptions in stock prices which represented a significant instability in expected returns. Of course, mutual funds were just as bitchy as they being the middlemen in stocks for the middle class didn't like missing the potential customers nor how it became clear just how illusionary stock prices really are when a relatively few can have significant disruptive effect on the stock market. But, I digress...

*Yes, I realize not everyone uses all services and plenty of people don't pay enough to cover their share of what they use. But, then short of every paying on a per-use basis, there's no way to be "fair" in that sense. Having said that, there's already the absurdity of people today who bitch they paid $X into social security and expect to get $X out, either to themselves or to their loved ones when they die, ignoring that plenty of people on social security get more than they ever paid in (the disabled, the elderly who live longer than average, etc) which makes that entirely unreasonable unless there's some expectation that the government either (a) take the $X and invest it into companies and use dividends or later sales or something to cover the difference (which wouldn't work, given the relatively low rate of return to the demand) or (b) take taxes from some other source to make up the difference (which makes social security not self-sustaining and rather misses the whole point of budgeting). Meanwhile, per-use services fall on their face for many obvious reasons (a person who is robbed of their money, is murdered, etc obviously can't pay) behind the whole injustice of such a system (not that people seem to think too much about that, but it's easy to not think about when you spend all your efforts painting government as the source of injustice). But, then, I digress again..

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009521)

Charities at least put the money to good use and are relatively efficient. Governments, not so much.
Usage fees on government services would be cool. I could hire the Marines for a weekend to go kick my neighbor's ass for letting his dog crap on my lawn.

Re:What? (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009683)

Charities at least put the money to good use and are relatively efficient. Governments, no so much.

Depends on the charity. How many cancers have been cured, again? Seriously, though, people expect the world from governments--and certainly a lot of the blame comes from authoritarian government officials and their supporters in the past who used it to justify their actions, whether or not they were justifiable, along with the more socialist oriented who set to use government to fix social, economic, and private company problems--while ignoring all the good that governments do do. It is, after all, the case that millions of people receive medical care (if nothing else, for many from the government mandate of requiring medicare provides to provide emergency care regardless of whether a person can pay), housing, food, etc precisely because of government in a way that charity can't reasonable match because even the wealthy combined couldn't prove the sort of funds necessary for the task while not nearly enough individuals reliably donate--they're less likely to donate during times of trouble which are precisely the time when the need is greatest.

Having said that, yes, government is grossly inefficient at times, often corrupt at various levels, frequently takes up causes that are either misguided or inappropriate, etc. But, that's a part of the necessary evil of government. The best that can reasonably be done is to work to fight those points of inefficiency, corruption, etc. One sad truth is, most people aren't interested enough politically to do that and so you have inane things like Congress having horrible public support yet individual Congressmen having great public support, even though those Congressmen vote in lock-step with the greater Congress on almost everything. One could then argue, I guess, that at least with charity it requires an active action to occur, so at least from that perspective it'd result in money being spent overall more wisely. But, if people can't be bother to invest time in their government, why would they bother with charities? No, the result would be a drastic drop in "charitable" spending (ie, both government and private spending towards the needs of others) even if overall private charitable spending would skyrocket.

I mean, as much as some people like to envision the chicken and egg issue of government involvement in affairs like welfare came about because of do-gooders usurping charities, the truth is that government only became involved after a long period of charities/private individuals simply failing to meet the demands of the people and only after a lot of political fighting--admittedly a lot of it based on the principal of what a government should be and do and not only on the selfishness of the wealthy who knew they would likely have to shoulder a lot of the burden--did change occur. So, backing out of paying taxes is pretty much paramount to either giving up on the idea that the problem is at least workable (if not solvable) or being at least a little selfish and ignorant, possibly willfully, about how many people are being damned to starvation, the cold, etc. I mean, the only thing left is saying that those people "deserve" their condition of real poverty because they don't work [enough]--ignoring the adage "the world doesn't owe you a living" and how that translates to starvation as well as how many breaks business people get in things like bankruptcy, limited liability through corporations, etc.

Well, sorry for all the rambling. I guess I'm just sick of the way the image of government has been so twisted, from in the 50s being the source of heroic "G-Men" battling communism and supporting justice at home to now being full of incompetent boobs who do nothing right--and both coming from the same political party. Neither image was true, of course, and it's not like the image actually made government into what it was projected to be, although it could be said that in the former case the projection was used to cover up corruption while in the latter case the projection was used to justify it--again by the same political party. Perhaps the nuanced truth of the situation is too difficult to consider? All I know is, government does a lot more good than a lot of people give it credit for. It's just hard to defend an organization that you also know has a lot of faults. And it's really hard to counter an idea that's so frankly absurd to reality. I mean, how do you challenge a person and his followers who all seem to believe that water is not wet, even after you dump a bucket of water on them?

Re:What? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009733)

Hell, when middle and upper middle class people started actually buying stocks directly (as day traders), their was an incredible amount of bitching and moaning from the rich

In contrast poker players trying to make money are actually happy if more fish join the table.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009759)

You do realize that the nominal tax rate for capital gains is not the true tax rate, right? When you buy stock, you but a piece of a company. That company pays the corporate tax rate on all profits. You, as an investor, now pay that tax TIMES the capital gains tax. Seriously, do you want to penalize people for being success ? It's the surest way to quench an economy ! Zuckerberg created thousands of jobs and BILLIONS of dollars of wealth where none existed before; so what if he gets rich? He fucking deserves it. I wish more people would do the same!

Re:What? (1)

oxdas (2447598) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009833)

On the other hand, businesses get more tax breaks as well. That they only pay taxes on the profits means that the owners get to invest; in infrastructure, workers, r&d, etc. for free. They also don't have to pay taxes on capital appreciation for their stock in that company and those investments. Theoretically, the super rich are supposed to pay that tax when they die, but there are lots of ways around that. Less than a quarter of the Walmart fortune has seen a dime of taxes. Do they deserve that much money? I think they deserve to be rewarded, but too much inequality starts harming everyone. I love capitalism. Capitalism leverages the greed inherent in most people (good idea). Unfortunately, the only way to preserve capitalism for the long term is to ensure that opportunity persists in high enough quantity that people's greed drives them to pursue it. I worry that we are reaching the point where inequality starts eroding our capitalism and not sustaining it. Do you believe that there can be such a thing as too much inequality?

Re:What? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008497)

FWIW, Jobs only got $1 annual salary, plus lots of stock options (at a "special" rate). Since he didn't get paid a salary that could be taxed, he "borrowed" against his stock and options, which is not taxable until the options are converted to stock, or the stock sold, and then it is "capital gains", and not simple income, at a much lower tax rate... So, in effect, he was paid million$, but had a tax burden much less, percentage-wise, than the rest of us working schlubs!

Re:What? (3, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008735)

Jobs and Zuck will also own a large chunk of a different class of shares that the typical stock price. These special shares will have things like more voting rights, potentially pay a dividend or similar every year, they may (or may not, depending) be unlimited liability rather than traditional limited liability stocks and so on. I'm not quite sure how apple and facebook do (or will do) it, but this is pretty common for most big companies.

It's because of these different share classes that zuck will be able to give himself 60% of the voting power in the company, despite owning only about 25% of the value of the company.

Being the CEO of a company comes with a few perks too. That private jet the company owns? You're using it for business purposes, even if you're flying to florida for golfing, it's always part of your security/connectedness/etc. requirement, and because you're golfing with the CEO of another company it's business meeting, so it's not a taxable benefit since it is for work.

Over the years regulators have become less fond of the more archaic schemes, like rather than hiring you, they're contracting sir_sri management services, a wholly own subsidiary of Sri's Cayman Island management group, where Sri officially claims residence, so the housing, provided by the company, is a 'temporary residence' and for the use of any of Sir_Sri Management services employees who may be required to fulfill the terms of the contract (not disclosed), and they're families who may also have an expense account to deal with the temporary relocation from the Cayman islands. Oh and because you're only there temporarily, all your meals, and general housing services are also covered expenses*.

* a lot of this still happens a lot, justifiably so, on shorter term stuff.

Re:What? (1)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009551)

...and because you're golfing with the CEO of another company it's business meeting, so it's not a taxable benefit since it is for work.

I really wish the IRS would make it so that you can only deduct things necessary for the business to function. There is no reason that you need to play golf with the CEO, or your latest client. Meet with them in a fucking office meeting room and stop using the business as a tax free credit card!

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009665)

That might make it a pretty dreary work environment. That office party you throw for every 10th/100th product you sell, that christmas party, that free lunch fridays are all unnecessary to the core function of the business. So they'd be taxable benefits, so who would do any of it? Treat your employees like drones, and you get drones. Germany up until relatively recently even let bribes be a deductible business expense, because well, that's the cost of doing business a lot of places. I think you lose a competitive edge if you can't wine and dine other guys, and there really is a lot to be said for having semi-casual business discussions.

Don't get me wrong, I mentioned it because it is abused, but there's probably a legitimate case for business expenses to include treating your people and customers like more than just drones.

Re:What? (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008463)

His salary is irrelevant anyway. Most of his income will come from stocks. After all, God forbid he should have to pay taxes. I can't criticize him too much, as he at least had the basic decency to join with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in planning to give away at least half his wealth. I do wonder if the less visible Facebook execs have any plans to support the country that made them rich.

Re:What? (1)

paxprobellum (2521464) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008493)

I agree that his salary is largely irrelevant. It just seems ridiculous to take (a publicized) $1 salary for ... one calendar year. (If that?)

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008509)

Potentially stupid question - how did the country make them rich?

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008577)

Public education for him and his employees. Infrastructure to help him and his employees get around and provide them with the electricity needed for their work. Safety and stability so that he doesn't have to pay millions of dollars in protection money to organized crime. Safe, plentiful food and clean water, so that he didn't die as a child. Clean air, so that he doesn't have horrible respiratory illnesses. Social safety nets so that he could take risks without fear of dying in the gutter if he failed. And so on.

Nobody gets where they are alone. Everyone relies on the society they live in for support. That's why you don't see people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg coming out of Somalia. Unfortunately, it's now become commonplace to deny this obvious truth, because "Greed is Good", at least in the minds of the greedy.

Re:What? (5, Funny)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008753)

Nobody gets where they are alone. Everyone relies on the society they live in for support. That's why you don't see people like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg coming out of Somalia.

No, no, no! Somalia's not like American because it doesn't have enough Jobses and Zuckerbergs! They're the job creators! If Somalians had more of that entrepeneurial spirit, they'd be rich too!

Re:What? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008809)

Somalians do have entrepreneurial spirit, they just end up being shot because of it.

...which is a pretty good solution, actually, for some Western "entrepreneurs" like Zuckerberg and Murdoch.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008999)

Shooting Zuckerberg and Murdoch? Murdoch is a scumbag that actively tries to have laws changed to hurt regular people, so I could understand some vitriol there.

But all Zuckerberg did was make a service that millions of people love. And he did it without selling anyone's personal information, buying draconian legislation, etc.

You might find facebook annoying, or be jealous of his site's success, but let's not get stupid.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008819)

Capitalism doesn't work without strong property rights and an equal rule of law. Somalia has neither.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008943)

"Capitalism doesn't work without strong property rights and an equal rule of law. Somalia has neither."

It's only the Somalia *does* have equal rule of law, in fact a single law, "the one on the right side of the AK-47 commands" and *does* have the strongest of property rights, just try to take off the AK-47 from the hands that hold it from the right side.

It's only ridiculous to claim that Somalia doesn't enjoys the benefits of capitalism in its purest form.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009159)

And Atlas Shrugged II -- Atlas The King Of Somalia

Re:What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009161)

He and his family would have already paid the public and private entities involved in the respective parts of society that you cite. They owe the country nothing more. If you like their service, use it. If you don't, then don't. Just because a person or company is successful isn't an excuse to increase their taxes. It's awful familiar to that protection money you mentioned.

And here's a hint regarding the success of America -- it's called freedom. Over-taxation and over-regulation is the source of our decline, not too much freedom or too little of your protection. Get real!

Re:What? (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39010037)

Nonsense. Gov't destroyed education, not improved it, made it much more expensive and destroyed the quality.

Gov't doesn't create infrastructure, in fact gov't can do absolutely nothing without the free enterprise providing the means for it. The wealth is FIRST created by the people who work for living and then gov't comes in and steals it, reduces the overall amount of wealth in the system, scatters it around among its preferred people and then this is called 'public good'.

I am happy to live in times when this is going to come to a crashing end, this is something to look forward to - the end of the system. Either it will turn completely dictatorial and it will be even a bigger disaster or there will be a huge swing back to the true free market and freedoms for individuals and socialist ideologues will simply be laughed out of town.

Re:What? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39010081)

Oh, and the people who are able to build their businesses and then are able to be paid more money than average are already giving back to society much more than society EVER gave them.

Facebook didn't exist and now 10% of population are on it. Definitely 1 person giving 10% of population something they are willing to use is much more important than any taxes that can ever be collected or anything that this person was ever given by anybody.

He shouldn't be paying ANY taxes, he already pays his dues to the society as is, by providing it with something the society wants. Before he pays a single cent in taxes, he already paid millions in salary, he bought millions in equipment and he created millions in value for his clients, investors, customers and employees.

Re:What? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008731)

Potentially stupid question - how did the country make them rich?

I guess one answer is, why do these success stories tend to occur in the US rather then elsewhere? Why isn't Silicon Valley in a tax haven instead of California?

Re:What? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008811)

Come to think of it, a more direct answer is, "The US Government invented the Internet."

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008873)

And AT&T invented damn near everything that made the Internet possible. That still doesn't mean the country caused any one individual's success.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009691)

And the U.S. taxpayer paid for the invention of the Internet. It's sad to see how we've fallen so far behind, allowing our investing in it to stall compared to countries like South Korea.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008593)

If they are in options. Then it will be at his full tax rate. If he owns the stock outright then he will only make money on the sale (diff of strike and sale price) at long term rates (15%, normal if sold short term). Being company stock he would have to wait 2 years before enjoying that. Until then it would be at his normal tax rate. Divs are at 15%.

Why yes I do own company stock in another company...

Re:What? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008945)

I do wonder if the less visible Facebook execs have any plans to support the country that made them rich.

What line do you have to stand in to be made rich by your country? Because I want to stand in that line.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009565)

It's the "educate yourself and work your ass off" line, and you don't just stand in it.

Re:What? (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009859)

Generally, it's the line where you get born to rich parents.

Re:What? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009995)

There are such "lines" all over the country. Join a start-up. Start a business. Work on Wall Street. Make the next Minecraft or Braid. Play professional sports. Become a musician or actor. Of course, doing those things doesn't guarantee success. There's quite a lot of work required, and quite a bit of luck needed too. But that doesn't mean that the country didn't enable your success.

Being born in a great nation like the US means that you get opportunities that people in Syria or Moldova or the Congo can scarcely dream of. You still need to work, and there's no guarantee of a payoff, but if you do end up as one of the lucky ones, if you do end up making more money than you could possibly spend in a lifetime, you have a duty to give back so that those same opportunities are still around for the next generation.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009005)

What about if he reinvested all that "Given away" wealth into creating thousands of jobs for out of work Americans? Just saying....

Re:What? (0)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008467)

Exec's don't switch to $1 till their pension/social security requirements have been met and their stocks start paying dividends. Ask Warren Buffetts secretary what part she doesn't understand.

Re:What? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008713)

She probably doesn't understand why you want people asking her about executive compensation instead of asking her boss.

Re:What? (0)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008847)

Apparently, neither do you. Because her salary is 2x her boss. Which is my point. If she had a clue she could learn from her boss, so could a lot of Americans.

Re:What? (2)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008895)

She earns $2 a year? Wow, her boss ist a bastard.

trend blog (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008475)

Günümüzde internet kullanclar için güncel blog [ulenn.com] lar artk hzla önem kazanmaktadr.
Heleki facebook [ulenn.com] gibi twitter [ulenn.com] gibi sosyal alarnda gelimesiyle
bloglarnda gündemde kalmas daha kolay olmaktadr.Ulenn.Com [ulenn.com] olarak gündemin nabzn tutmay , devaml olarak özgün yazlar yazarak
okuyucularmzla birlikte ayn duyguyu paylamay hedefledik.Sitemizi bizim gibi kiisel bloglar arasnda her zaman Trend Blog [ulenn.com] olacak ekilde
gündemde tutmay , bizi takip eden okuyucularmza anlk olarak karlkl sohbet ediyormu gibi yorumlarna karlk vermek için blogumuzda 7/24 hali hazrda bekliyoruz.

Thanks Mark, for Facebook (5, Insightful)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008481)

It's a great free app that I can choose to use, or not to use. It has brought me in contact with people I haven't talked to for decades. I hope you become fabulously rich. I also hope that Facebook doesn't engineer itself into oblivion before an alternative comes along...

Why does he need a salary at all? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008513)

It's such a waste of money to give these guys a salary when they are billionaires. If I were them I would lower my salary to $1 or I would give myself the salary of my lowest level employee as a gesture.

Re:Why does he need a salary at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008533)

He's not a billionaire. Not yet. He's a potential billionaire. His salary is what he makes, its his only pay from the company. You are only a billionaire when you can sell your company shares for a billion dollars. He's a paper billionaire. He probably has a massive credit line, and can take loans using his shares as collateral, but he most definitely is not a billionaire.

Re:Why does he need a salary at all? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008615)

Sounds like somebody hasn't heard of secondary markets. He can most definitely sell his shares pre-IPO (FTC regulations notwithstanding, which would certainly come into play now that an S1 has been filed).

Re:Why does he need a salary at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009335)

But he hasn't sold them, which means he has not converted them into cash, which means it is still just theoretical value. Sure, he may take out loans but he has to pay them back with real money, which would require...real money. Hence, he needs a salary.

Re:Why does he need a salary at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008567)

Most owners of a business incorporate it in order to protect what is theirs from what is the business's. It keeps the owner from losing everything they have (their house, the clothes on their back) if the company is sued and loses. As far as getting a salary is concerned, it is to show good faith that they are willing to put a $$ on their contribution to the company; furthermore, some States require that anyone (even owners) who are at an incorporated business, must have the liability and accountability recorded, ie, be an employee, and as such, need a salary.

I know several business owners, and they do this to protect their personal lives from being ruined because some wacko sues their company for, oh say, $600 trillion.

Re:Why does he need a salary at all? (1)

NemoinSpace (1118137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008939)

If I were them ...
If they were you, I suppose they would sit around all night and post on Slashdot. ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Facebook.

Re:Why does he need a salary at all? (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008949)

Executives that elect for stock only compensation might seem to be extremely magnanimous in not taking a salary. In reality it is a nice way to shield yourself from nearly all of your income tax burden. Candidates for office whose first names rhyme with bullshit tend to lose in the court of public opinion when it comes out they pay buffet level taxes instead of their "fair share."

It's funny that when people talk about 1 dollar executives they get all lovey-eyed, but when they talk about executives paying no taxes they get all torchy-pitch-forkey. When in actuality the two are the exact same thing. You know how much Larry Paige pays in income tax on his salary? $0. Know how much Zuck will pay? about 270k (assuming the bonus is cash). One sounds like a billionaire asshole, the other sounds like a billionaire asshole who pays at least some taxes.

I am not saying Google does no good, or that Facebook does, but I am sick of the fluttery $1 salary non-sense.

Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008523)

Let's see how many of the people griping about income inequality and bad corporate conduct will continue using Facebook as the venue for their griping, never realizing the irony.

Look, over there, it's an oil executive and 1%er! Get him! Thanks Mr. 99%er Zuckerberg for your help!

Facebook is the worst example of everything the computer revolution shouldn't have been. An inside crew hit a huge lottery-style jackpot (many better startups have surely failed, for having been in the wrong place at the wrong time) made not by creating things which help people enough for those customers to be willing to buy, but rather, engaging in atrocious and unethical behavior, coercing users into submitting to the FB hive mind through network effect guilt coming from their friends. Not many people will keep telling the 3 in 4 (or more) of their friends/coworkers on FB to keep getting bent every time they ask why first said party is not a member.

Facebook is the new Big Tobacco. It's addictive, unhealthy, sold through peer pressure, and not in the user's best interest.

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008721)

Agreed, and it is reassuring to be in class and see that more and more people are ditching Social networking and saying, "get over yourselves - we don't care what you do in your personal lives."

As far as my friends go, it usually takes some incidence of drama to get them to quit. Two of my friends quit as a result of bad breakups with ex-wives. I was smart enough to learn those lessons back in the MySpace days, when I was in a relationship living with my girlfriend:

" Ethanol, who is that bitch you added to your friends list? Are you cheating on me ?! "
" Uh, she's my sister. No, I am not cheating on you.

( 3 days later )
" Ethanol, who is that bitch you just added to your friend's list. Are you gonna cheat on me with her?! "
" No, she's my fucking grandma! "

That teacher, incidentally, moonlights as a consultant and encouraged us all to "network," because that's how people get jobs and succeed, he thinks.

He should tell that to my boss, an utterly unqualified asshole and idiot, who got his job due to networking because his buddy was his boss and friends with his boss' boss. After he utterly ruined our department, blaming his faults on us, and sent morale through the floor blaming and bullying, I led a revolt to overthrow him. Consultants were called in to see where the faults were and his buddy-boss was asked to leave the company. Now everybody involved in the idiot's hiring is getting a pistol-whipping from corporate, and he's on his way out. Meanwhile, the department (except for the boss, of course) got bonuses for showing self-sufficiency in the absense of real leadership.

In short, "networking" is another bullshit buzzword. Any decent employee can succeed by merit alone.

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008791)

In the example you gave I don't see how MySpace was the problem at all, your insecure, jealous girlfriend would have given you grief with or without MySpace.

As for your classmates, why would they have friends on Facebook that they don't care about? If there are people on Facebook I don't care about I either hide them or unfriend them. Social networking is a tool. That some people don't know how to use it is not the tools fault.

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39008869)

Yes, the example was a bit extreme, but I was trying to say that no good ever came out of social networking for me, only bad. Again, I don't need to "network" to land decent jobs, that's what references are for. Not socially networking also helps me weed the voyeurs and petties out of my personal life.

I've mentioned this before, but there is a lot that can be inferred even from a private facebook profile. An example - I don't social network, but my ex girlfriend did. Even private facebook profiles show a name and a picture to the public. Searching for her name + "facebook" on Google led me to her profile, and through the changes to her profile pic over time, I was able to (properly, verified later without asking through conversations with her) determine when she got a new puppy and when she broke up with her boyfriend.

Knowing that she didn't have a boyfriend, we became intimate again, and I told her about how I brought her only cat treats(not bringing dog treats) in a past visit even though I knew she had a puppy because it would be creepy for me to know she had a puppy then. I also told her that I used the same tactic to know when it was a good time to flirt with her. She giggled at first, then started to become angry. "It's not fair!" she said. You can stalk me online, but I can't stalk you?

Creepy? Maybe. Hypocrite voyeur? Perhaps. But not nearly as creepy as actually having a Profile and spending my workday leering at scantily-clad friends of friends online and sticking my nose all up in their business.

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008961)

MySpace ISN'T The problem. They actually rocked all along.
They still even have a CHANCE to make it better.
Even though they are kind of still hangin on what they should do.
(roll out drupal's for the bands and the venues, instrument manufacturers, electronics manufacturers, and the shows and the rest of the crap that goes with it -imo)
Even though freedom from ties to MURDOC.

MySpace has several problems.

1. the whole thing needs to be re-designed, something bold like rolling out free drupals + tied to free video server outbound feeds.
2. The search engine can NOT be google with filters. ;o)
3. The spy files are bad on MySpace just the same as every other on, read the list at cryptome
4. Faster Cut and Past of embedded content. Makes things spread quicker.
5. The possibility to focus on unsigned bands more often.

I actually liked myspace, but in light of all the spy docs now, I don't use any social crap.

google+ is a rip off of +hcunix - mental word games

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009091)

Agreed, and it is reassuring to be in class and see that more and more people are ditching Social networking and saying, "get over yourselves - we don't care what you do in your personal lives."

As far as my friends go, it usually takes some incidence of drama to get them to quit. Two of my friends quit as a result of bad breakups with ex-wives. I was smart enough to learn those lessons back in the MySpace days, when I was in a relationship living with my girlfriend:

" Ethanol, who is that bitch you added to your friends list? Are you cheating on me ?! "

" Uh, she's my sister. No, I am not cheating on you.

( 3 days later )
 
" Ethanol, who is that bitch you just added to your friend's list. Are you gonna cheat on me with her?! "

" No, she's my fucking grandma! "

That teacher, incidentally, moonlights as a consultant and encouraged us all to "network," because that's how people get jobs and succeed, he thinks.

He should tell that to my boss, an utterly unqualified asshole and idiot, who got his job due to networking because his buddy was his boss and friends with his boss' boss. After he utterly ruined our department, blaming his faults on us, and sent morale through the floor blaming and bullying, I led a revolt to overthrow him. Consultants were called in to see where the faults were and his buddy-boss was asked to leave the company. Now everybody involved in the idiot's hiring is getting a pistol-whipping from corporate, and he's on his way out. Meanwhile, the department (except for the boss, of course) got bonuses for showing self-sufficiency in the absense of real leadership.

In short, "networking" is another bullshit buzzword. Any decent employee can succeed by merit alone.

If they network alone.

Re:Occuhippies and millenials will still use FB (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009863)

There's no irony in using the necessary tools to get your message out. Were you the same crazy guy complaining when they used the newspapers too, because those were owned by rich guys?

You use the forum that you have to. Often there isn't a superior venue to the one that in the short run benefits one of your opponents. That doesn't mean you'll lose in the long run.

Slashdot. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008669)

News for fucking wankers
Stuff that's get stuffed in goatse's ass.

FAILZORS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008701)

Niggers with aspergers syndrome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008799)

Slashdot is full of nigger sucking autistic cocks.

Re:Niggers with aspergers syndrome (0, Offtopic)

manual_tranny (2566083) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009031)

Slashdot is full of nigger sucking autistic cocks.

Is there a way to automatically forward your comments on /. to my Grandmother? It's some sort of Tourettes poetry or something. It really drives to the heart of the issue and makes me feel closer to my fellow man. I hope you have the courage to post with your name and address sometime! :P

Facebook is a scourge upon the web (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39008879)

Facebook is a scourge upon the web.
You dumb motherfuckers who play.

The 50-100 Billion value is completely made up by bidding on what your stolen secrets are worth.
The only people facebook is good for is bands readjusting from all the current bullshit, and even they can be backstabbed down the line.
You dumb fucks on slashdot have less time than you know to keep up these retarded arguments.
The drones are coming next.

Still a little disturbing (4, Insightful)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009021)

When people make my entire retirement savings (me+wife working for 30 years) in a weekend, I wonder why I bothered doing science. Clearly, I was in the wrong line of work and the world changed out from under me.

Re:Still a little disturbing (1, Flamebait)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009059)

Wait... 500,000 / 365 * 2 = $2739.73

If that's all you have saved, that says more about you than Zuckerburg's salary.

Re:Still a little disturbing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009263)

yeah, that's what he meant, idiot.

Re:Still a little disturbing (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009865)

Your calculation is a little off for what Zucker can make in a weekend.

-3 : Incorrectly Pedantic Ad-hominem Comment (1)

sonamchauhan (587356) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009975)

You excluded any valuation of his ownership stake and options from your definition of "making" (I know Facebook is not public yet, but I _can_ estimate the value of the home I own as an asset without having to try sell it.)

Not to mention other perks like use of an executive jet.
http://www.bornrich.com/private-jet.html [bornrich.com]

If this were Apple being discussed, wouldn't we get some really kooky numbers Jobs' $1 salary?

Re:Still a little disturbing (4, Insightful)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009355)

I wonder why I bothered doing science.

You were suckered in. I saw the light and went into medicine. It's not a perfect job, and it's definitely not science, but it's interesting and it pays well.

Re:Still a little disturbing (1)

sinai (989310) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009451)

Zuck didn't get to where he is solely due to greed. Lucky break? Sure, but that should only encourage a career in science/tech/engineering/medicine. Consider that at a $750k annual income, Zuck makes about $4k each weekend. Add to that the assumption that he made a conservative $1bn US from his stock appreciation, allocated over 8 years. So since he started Facebook, he's been making about $690k every weekend. Having $690k in retirement as a couple is downright impressive in a country where well over half [cnn.com] the population could not cover a $1,000 emergency. I would be proud if I were you!

Re:Still a little disturbing (2)

404 Clue Not Found (763556) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009661)

You know, compared to say, Wall Street traders who shuffle value around and skim off the top and add nothing to society, I think the guys behind Facebook actually deserve this. They've done a great social service for millions around the world at no cost to them beyond their privacy.

Science has benefits beyond its pay (I would hope), but very little science affects the world like Facebook.

Re:Still a little disturbing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39010221)

Science has benefits beyond its pay (I would hope), but very little science affects the world like Facebook.

The world exists in its current state because of science. Gimmicks like facebook are typically forgotten within the span of a decade. Try to get some perspective.

Re:Still a little disturbing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009795)

I've got news for you...life's "score" isn't counted in dollars. At best, it's a related stat that may help you get what you really want out of your time here. Worrying about whether you have enough is reasonable. But worrying about why you're not one of the über-wealthy few is a pointless endeavor that can only lead to under-appreciating all that you do have.

Re:Still a little disturbing (2)

m50d (797211) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009895)

Most people who went into tech don't make as much as Zuck. I suspect top scientists (even the average nobel prize winner is only the best in a given year - Zuckerberg has done better than that) make similar money.

Re:Still a little disturbing (3, Insightful)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009965)

When people make my entire retirement savings (me+wife working for 30 years) in a weekend, I wonder why I bothered doing science. Clearly, I was in the wrong line of work and the world changed out from under me.

No-one forced you to do science. No-one promised you hundreds of millions of dollars. Why didn't you just start a highly successful business?

Re:Still a little disturbing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009977)

Why obsessed with money? Ask yourself, are you happy? You've got a wife and have worked for 30 years, putting you in the 50's bracket - that's more than a lot of people get. Why so regretful of the life you've led?

Re:Still a little disturbing (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009991)

When people make my entire retirement savings (me+wife working for 30 years) in a weekend, I wonder why I bothered doing science. Clearly, I was in the wrong line of work and the world changed out from under me.

What has changed? Entrepreneurs are have always been the ones getting rich, and science has never been a career choice if you want to be a fat cat. It's not that you are in the wrong line of work you just didn't have the right combination of smarts, ideas, connections, work ethic, timing and luck to make it big.

Re:Still a little disturbing (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39010103)

You're confusing the laws of large numbers with success. For every facebook there are millions of failures. These people simply take advantage of economies of scale. If you want the big money you have to be in a position of authority on incoming revenue over the business. It's better to be an owner then a worker. That's why the richest people tend to be owners or something close to it.

Seems Reasonable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009125)

How many CEOs have actually earned these salaries and bonuses? I think Zuckerberg has. Congrats!

zuckerburg annual salary (2)

Alchist (2029318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009461)

Zuckerburg's salary of $500,000 is only effective through 2012. As of 2013, it will drop to $1. http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/01/mark-zuckerberg-will-have-a-1-salary-starting-in-2013/ [techcrunch.com]

Re:zuckerburg annual salary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009537)

That's pretty much expected I think. Now he can be compensated 99.999% by stock options, less taxes that way.

Go American dream

maybe it's just me, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39009595)

for a 100-billion-dollar company, a quarter million doesn't seem like a whole lot of "bonus" for the CEO.

Re:maybe it's just me, but (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 2 years ago | (#39009715)

If it makes you feel better, he got a little stock, too.

Because they are worth it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39010203)

Because they say so!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>