$2.5 million per year is in the top 0.1% of income in the United States. No matter how you shake it, whether you want people with management experience, tech experience, browser experience, or some combination thereof, you will find a significantly large number who would be able to do the job, do it well, and make more than their current salary.

I bet any mid level tech manager from a large company (who loves open source) would do a much better job and work for 1/4 her salary until he proved he was worth her old salary and raised the tides of success for the company.

You could make this same argument about professional athletes, but all across the world no one seems to follow through on this obvious money-saving hack. So I presume it's more complicated than you're suggesting.

Many peofessional athletes are not well paid at all so I am not sure I get your point.

Japanese CEO salaries are famously very low. The Toyota CEO makes about USD 3.5m. There are other C levels that make 3 times what the Toyota CEO earns in direct compensation.

Japanese CEO salaries in general seem to be below USD1m on average.

> Japanese CEO salaries are famously very low. The Toyota CEO makes about USD 3.5m

I'm genuinely curious: Do you not see how insane it is that you believe this is low? Earning even a tenth of that would be stratospherically high.

Toyota is a huge company though. It's nothing like Mozilla. I would imagine there's a lot of responsibility riding on it. And I'd imagine that in Japanese culture badly performing CEOs actually face consequences.

It’s all relative. Compared to their western counterparts, these numbers are low.

Those numbers seem so much saner than the US.

Still insane, though. Nobody needs that kind of pay. This is not supply and demand, this is the executive class enriching themselves.

I disagree, if you're a company raking in $270B a year in revenue, you want the absolute best running it. The Toyota CEO is like 0.001% of the revenue, an extremely small price to pay for the right management.

I don't believe that for a second. Unless you just mean it in the sense of "90% of people that apply to a job aren't good at it". You can get many many qualified people for $250k.

Paying more doesn't get rid of the risk, so yes do the version that has risk but without the bonfire of cash.

We can show with good data that the actual CEO is not qualified either for this job. So why not getting somebody unqualified but cheaper?