I was thinking it was interesting more from the socioeconomic perspective:

1. Senior execs are still "working for the man", even if their compensation is materially different from other employees, except in the case of founders of mega-caps.

2. From a socioeconomic lifestyle perspective, the primary differentiator is that senior executives can afford larger one-time costs/upfront costs due to their equity compensation, but have to maintain fairly similar ongoing costs to senior ICs. E.g. a senior exec can afford to buy a nicer house in SFBA because of Prop 13 limiting ongoing property taxes and the ability to shell out more up front to either avoid a mortgage or minimize payments, but their ongoing lifestyle expenses otherwise are most likely not materially different.

Basically, given the rhetoric, I was expecting that senior execs were essentially living in a totally different parallel world from senior ICs in tech, but it doesn't seem that this is really the case /other than/ probably social connections and society. In both cases these employees are highly compensated, but still ultimately employees, and neither is on a rocketship into the billionaire class. The difference between a billionaire and a 50-millioniare (senior exec) is about a billion dollars, the difference between a billionaire and a 3-millionaire (senior IC) is about a billion dollars.

Maybe my take is wrong, but I'd expect that is more about fringe benefits (e.g. access to corporate PJ) than direct compensation.

And I don’t mean this in a negative way simply that this is just a 30min UI around a 1 hour LLM data pipeline.