I'm really not sure how to take the comment on the CEO's salary. Some days on HN, 400k is called one good software engineer's salary. Other day's its alluded to as being to as being an overpaid CEO. And then other days people try to justify CEOs making 100M a year.
It helps to understand why high CEO pay can be a good thing. It can be good because the difference between a 'meh' CEO and a fantastic CEO can be huge. If you really want to know why a Fortune 500 company's CEO might be worth 100M, just compare Ballmer's tenure to Nadella's!
Anyway, this isn't business. We're talking about an organization which employed 40 people, and whose own ordering of their deliverables by importance saw 'published 8 pamphlets' in their top 3. What, precisely, was the marginal benefit of paying the CEO 400K as opposed to say, 200K (which still amounts to ~5X the median personal income)? Did that 200K net an additional webinar production and another two pamphlets?
