????為什么沒人跑去“占領Facebook”？

????本月早些時候，社交媒體公司Facebook提交首次公開募股申請，人們最關注的是Facebook未來市值可能高達1,000億美元。然而，大家都忽略了、或者說沒有仔細追究Facebook高管們的薪酬待遇。這可是一筆巨款。僅2011年，這家公司高管薪酬的總額就高達8,300萬美元。涉及高管的薪酬，很難說支付多少屬于合理范疇。在某種程度上，正是因為這個原因，董事會最終批準了這些巨額薪金。Facebook的巨大成功也堵住了悠悠之口。甚至我的同事艾倫?斯隆在闡述Facebook首次公開募股的弊端時，也沒有提到高管薪酬。

????雖然華爾街經常被視為天價薪酬的標桿，不過與Facebook比起來簡直是小巫見大巫。唯一一家能和Facebook相提并論的銀行是摩根大通（JP Morgan）。2010年，其五位薪酬最高的高管共計獲得7,900萬美元（目前各大銀行尚未公布2011年高管們的薪酬情況），但與Facebook相比，仍然少了400萬美元。要知道，戴蒙（摩根大通首席執行官——譯注）等人管理的公司是一家足有239,831名雇員的巨無霸，而Facebook員工僅有3,200人。其它銀行則被Facebook遠遠拋在了身后。美國銀行（Bank of America）薪酬最高的八名高管共計獲得2,800萬美元，還趕不上謝麗爾?桑德博格一個人的薪酬。

????Where's the Occupy Facebook movement?

????Earlier this month, when the social media company filed for its initial public offering most of the attention was focused on the fact that Facebook could be worth as much as $100 billion. But what didn't get a lot of attention, or scrutiny, was what the company pays its top executives. It's a ton - $83 million in 2011 alone. It's hard to say what's fair when it comes to paying top executives. That is, in part, how boards get away with approving large paydays. Facebook's huge success, too, blunts criticism. Even my colleague, Allan Sloan, didn't include executive pay on his list of things wrong with Facebook's IPO.

????One yardstick, though, could be Wall Street, which is routinely singled out for its over-the-top compensation. Compared to Facebook, Wall Street pay looks like peanuts. The only bank that comes close to Facebook is JP Morgan Chase (JPM). That bank's five highest-paid executives got $79 million in 2010 (none of the banks have said what they paid in 2011 yet), nearly $4 million less than Facebook. But Dimon & Co. manage a company with 239,831 employees, compared to Facebook's 3,200. None of the other banks really come close. Bank of America's (BAC) top eight executives got paid a collective $28 million, less than Sheryl Sandberg took home alone.

????如果考慮盈利情況，Facebook的薪酬簡直荒唐可笑。這些高管們的薪水相當于Facebook 2011年凈利潤的8%。這一比例是高盛（Goldman Sachs）的10倍之多，高盛公司高管們的薪水還不到該公司凈利潤的1%。摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）的這一比例是1.2%。富國銀行（Wells Fargo）則僅為0.4%。的確，Facebook薪酬的絕大部分來自股票，而且其中一部分還是受限股票，但華爾街也同樣如此。與蘋果（Apple）首席執行官蒂姆?庫克要到2021年才能到手全部收入相比，Facebook股票的等待期相對較短，而且行使權力的依據完全是時間而不是績效。

????人們或許會說與大型銀行相比，新創企業必須將其利潤的更大一部分用于支付薪酬，因為它們賺得不多。但Facebook并不是典型的新創企業。其利潤已經高達10億美元。更重要的是， 2004年，谷歌（Google）上市的前一年，這家搜索公司頂級高管的總薪水僅為220萬美元。當然，這些高管后來從首次公開募股中大賺特賺，但扎克伯格之流肯定也會這樣。

????金融危機處于頂峰時，我們的高管薪酬問題一度出現過轉機。當時，人們曾強烈抗議美國國際集團（AIG）的留任獎金。華盛頓提出了獎金稅。奧巴馬后來任命了一位“薪酬沙皇”。如今下文如何？

????譯者：項航

????Based on profits, Facebook's pay only looks more ludicrous. The company paid its executives equal to 8% of its bottom line last year. That was 10 times Goldman Sachs (GS), whose executives take home pay was less than 1% of that firm's profits. Morgan Stanley's (MS) executive compensation equaled 1.2% of pay. Wells Fargo was just 0.4%. Yes, much of Facebook's pay is in stock, and some of it's restricted, but so is Wall Street. And the vesting periods at Facebook are relatively short - nothing like Apple's CEO Tim Cook who will have to wait until 2021 to get all of his pay - and the conditions are all based on time, not performance.

????You can make the case that start-ups have to pay out a higher ratio of their bottom line in pay than a big bank would because they don't make a lot of money. But Facebook isn't your typical start-up. It's bottom line is already $1 billion. What's more, in the year before Google (GOOG) went public back in 2004, the search firm top executives collectively received just $2.2 million in pay. Of course, those guys were set to get a huge payday from IPO, but so is Zuckerberg and Co.

????At the height of the financial crisis, it looked like we were on the verge of some kind of shift in executive pay. There was a public outcry over AIG's retention bonuses. A bonus tax was floated in Washington. Obama appointed a pay czar. What happened?