[HN Gopher] Googlers angry about CEO's $226M pay after cuts in p...
___________________________________________________________________
Googlers angry about CEO's $226M pay after cuts in perks and 12,000
layoffs
Author : eysquared
Score : 170 points
Date : 2023-05-04 20:54 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| martyvis wrote:
| Two words. Tone deaf.
| amir734jj wrote:
| Is $225M a lot for CEO of big corporation? I genuinely don't
| know. What is the average pay?
| epolanski wrote:
| It's a lot obviously.
| 542458 wrote:
| AP says average for large orgs is about 12 million.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-financial-markets-...
| LesZedCB wrote:
| Tim Apple - 99M [1]
|
| Satya Nadella - 54M [2]
|
| [1] https://www1.salary.com/Tim-Cook-Salary-Bonus-Stock-
| Options-...
|
| [2] https://www1.salary.com/Satya-Nadella-Salary-Bonus-Stock-
| Opt...
| zapdrive wrote:
| Lol @ Tim Apple. For those who don't know, Trump called Tim
| Cook "Tim Apple" in a conference once.
| pcurve wrote:
| it's a lot. Here's top 100.
| https://www.equilar.com/reports/90-table-highest-paid-ceos-2...
|
| Pichai is not on the list because he gets paid big every 3
| years I think. It's not a good look either way.
| rudyfink wrote:
| It is more than the profit (as listed by Fortune) of about 260
| companies in the Fortune 1000:
| https://fortune.com/ranking/fortune500/2022/search/ . In other
| words, Fortune lists about 260 companies in the Fortune 1000 as
| having a profit of less than 225 million in 2022.
| pcurve wrote:
| similar thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35809807
| zoiksmeboiks wrote:
| [dead]
| jimsimmons wrote:
| Hating capitalism is one thing. Being clueless how it works is
| childish.
|
| 200M over 3 years for the CEO of the most consequential tech
| company on the planet is peanuts. Pop artists make similar money
| scantily clad and squeezing autotune
| airstrike wrote:
| That's whataboutism. Googlers are comparing their pay (and
| layoffs) to the CEO's comp--pop artists are an entirely
| separate matter and Googlers may also feel those are paid too
| much
|
| Said differently: I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just
| pointing out that they can _also_ be upset over pop artists '
| pay
| jimsimmons wrote:
| OpenAI is allegedly paying 5-20M for researchers. Shouldn't
| CEO deserve 20x more?
|
| What motivation will Sundar have if you pay him 200K?
| nemothekid wrote:
| Sundar is make 3x more than Satya while doing fuck-all and
| coasting in his tenure.
| belval wrote:
| It's still extreme. I have no doubt that he works extremely
| hard but what are shareholders getting for a 226M$
| compensation instead of a 100M$ one?
| airstrike wrote:
| The question isn't about motivation and you're comparing
| $5-20M to $0.2M when the argument is $200M is too much
|
| The balanced answer then is to pay a CEO {something closer
| to $20M} and he will be motivated by {something closer to
| $20M} (plus their expectations of future comp).
|
| Whether that's $20M or $40M or $60M or more is up for
| debate. Googlers are saying: "It's not $226M"
| not2b wrote:
| There's a lot of room between 200k and 200M, and given that
| the company is laying people off and cutting costs, the CEO
| should share in that sacrifice.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| What is his special skill set?
| MPlus88 wrote:
| [dead]
| jimsimmons wrote:
| The fact that there's no TLDR of his skill set is his
| skill set.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Pop artists make similar money scantily clad and squeezing
| autotune_
|
| Which pop artist is making anywhere near 220M in take home over
| 3 years? 70M/year is Taylor Swift numbers, and shes the highest
| earning female artist _ever_.
| perfmode wrote:
| Drake
| jimsimmons wrote:
| Taylor Swift
| nemothekid wrote:
| Saying 'Pop artists make similar money' and then using the
| highest paid female artist ever is kind of misleading.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Why? It's not like Google is average, either
| [deleted]
| theoldlove wrote:
| Taylor Swift (one of the saaviest and wealthiest pop stars of
| the last 20 years) has a total net worth of $500 million. $225
| million over three years is significantly more than she's ever
| made.
| macromagnon wrote:
| If you like capitalism so much, then an artist having their
| income more clearly directly proportional to their output than
| some ceo definitely deserves a greater % of the profit.
|
| Also, minimizing the effort it takes to become a pop artist and
| being prude is such a cliche.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| It's not the most consequential because of him. It was at that
| level when he got the job. Should the comp, in terms of who
| deserves the most money, go to the guy on top, or to the
| employees in proportion to their contribution?
|
| CEO pay ratio is fucked in the US in any realm. It's just
| because those at the top have more leverage, they don't
| necessarily have more value.
| zpthree wrote:
| start a company and pay your CEO less if you want. Sergey and
| Larry believe he should get 226M, are you saying they are
| misjudging the situation?
| TrevorFSmith wrote:
| "It's almost like they care more about shareholders than
| Googlers."
|
| The C-suite works for the board and the major shareholders.
| They'll immediately throw workers under the bus if told to do so.
| That's their job. They'll be fired if they don't. They knew it
| from day one.
| 0zemp2c wrote:
| Googlers:
|
| if you don't like how Google works, vote with your feet
|
| you'll never own enough shares to get on the mic at an annual
| meeting, leaving is your only recourse
| gregdoesit wrote:
| Got to give it to Larry Page and Sergey Brin for having their
| cake and also eating it.
|
| They control ~51% of voting power with shares thanks to owning
| ~85% of class B shares. They have had the benefit of someone else
| running the company for 8 years - and increasing the value of it
| - and now, when things are not looking great, it's Sundar Pichai
| who gets the blame, and the focus on his compensation: and not
| those who set/approved this compensation.
|
| The biggest winners of Pichai's leadership have objectively been
| the shareholders: Google's market cap increased by ~$890B since
| he took over as CEO in 2015, tripling the market cap/stock price
| of the company.
|
| Larry and Sergey run this show: they simply hired someone else to
| do it for them. When things go well: they profit. When not so
| well - like now - someone else is on the hook and is the person
| criticised for how things go at Google; and it's not them.
| quitit wrote:
| While all valid points, the current outrage is driven by the
| spiking CEO pay while making significant cut backs, this is all
| set against a wider landscape of belt tightening, a looming
| recession and the observation that CEOs are earning
| historically high pay ratios.
|
| Those high ratios led Apple shareholders to request a pay cut
| of their CEO, and that was without poor performance or firing
| workers.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| My take on the OP's comment was that his salary and bonuses
| are controlled by the board. As Sergei and Larry have
| majority control he would not have gotten this without their
| explicit approval.
| loeg wrote:
| That is true of any CEO pay, though.
| justrealist wrote:
| Not sure I'm following. They aren't getting new equity grants,
| they're de-facto out of the picture and just riding the
| valuation. They have 51% voting power but it's not obvious they
| are actively making decisions, rather than just holding onto
| power in just-in-case.
|
| Sundar is getting _new_ equity grants based on his
| "performance". That's not the same.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| Larry and Sergey hired Sundar to do a job (make money for
| shareholders aka Larry and Sergey). If Sundar doesn't want to
| do that job anymore they'll find someone else to do it
| better.
|
| If I'm ignoring morality and just pretending I own the
| company and want to be richer, my opinion would be: if I
| think there is someone out there who will do a better job
| than my CEO and they are available, hire them no matter how
| much it costs. Whatever I'm paying them is peanuts compared
| to their impact on the company's market cap. Nowhere in my
| option space is "keep the same sub-par CEO but pay them
| less", that's penny-wise and pound-foolish thinking.
| gregdoesit wrote:
| Larry and Sergey have 51% voting power. They are the ones
| deciding how much Sundar is paid. Put it the other way: if
| they don't want to pay him that much: they have the power to
| do so.
|
| As the ultimate owners of the company by shareholder votes,
| they approved the compensation of Sundar, and are the
| decision makers.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| Never underestimate the power of the veto. Those who hold it,
| certainly don't.
| roflyear wrote:
| CEO doesn't get a raise without it being okay with
| shareholders
| loeg wrote:
| How is this different from any other public company, where
| employees are not the majority shareholders? Like, what is
| special about Page and Brin?
| cced wrote:
| How can we account for inflation when we say market cap
| increased by $xB? How can we differentiate an actual increase
| in value as opposed to currency debasement?
| misssocrates wrote:
| Isn't taking the blame part of why CEOs get paid millions of
| dollars? 226 of them in this case. Pichai signed up for it and
| is objectively a winner too.
| sqldba wrote:
| I'll take some blame for $226m.
|
| What you've said is nonsensical. Being the victim of some
| harsh words forgotten the next day while never having to work
| another day in your life is not any kind of responsibility.
| tehlike wrote:
| Google performed only slightly better than QQQ in the past 5
| years, and performed significantly worse than AAPL. Tim Cook
| doesn't get that comp, if that's what you mean.
| ddol wrote:
| Doesn't Laurene Powell Jobs still hold 5.5% of AAPL through
| the Steve Jobs Trust?
| roflyear wrote:
| I thought he got paid more?
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I thought he got paid more?_
|
| According to this+, he made $99.4 million last year, but
| will get $49 million this year.
|
| That's 80% less than Pichai.
|
| + https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-
| news/app...
| enjo wrote:
| I will gladly take the role of whipping boy off of Sundar's
| hands.
| tomlockwood wrote:
| Unionise.
| lvl102 wrote:
| In comparison, Nadella is a bit above $50M which is gross
| underpay considering how Ballmer left the company. Nadella has
| been the best CEO in the past decade. In fact, you could argue
| that he's the best investment manager in the past decade since
| MSFT is now a giant technology conglomerate. Better than
| Berkshire.
| roflyear wrote:
| Well the 226m vests over 3 years. So it's not so bad.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Such hyperbole. Apple is superior in every financial metric. I
| don't know how anyone can say this with a straight face while
| apple exists.
| mkl95 wrote:
| I have mostly worked for companies whose ARR is 5-10% of this
| guy's pay. And their CEOs usually have a bigger ego!
| electriclove wrote:
| I disagree about putting all these things together.
|
| The layoffs and reduction in perks were sorely needed in Big Tech
| given all the fat that has been milking it for years.
|
| The CEO pay is definitely egregious and should be called out (and
| those at other companies should also be called out).
| segasaturn wrote:
| While I agree that CEOs are overpayed, I think the same applies
| to software engineers. Software Engineering has been a pay/perk
| bubble for years that was due for a correction, and like when
| Elon cut the free gourmet lunches and coffees for Twitter staff,
| I'm sure the Google engineers will survive.
|
| Meanwhile Google's "raters", the army of workers who do the hard
| work of moderating and testing Google's platforms are getting
| paid crumbs in comparison:
| https://www.npr.org/2023/03/25/1166059832/googles-ghost-work...
| sidfthec wrote:
| The money has to go somewhere. Why don't you want it to go to
| the employees?
| dheera wrote:
| > While I agree that CEOs are overpayed, I think the same
| applies to software engineers.
|
| You know who is _really_ overpaid? Landlords. They are the
| reason everything in Silicon Valley is so damn expensive. I 'd
| gladly take a pay cut if the "landlord association of america"
| would collectively take a pay cut of their own. That will make
| this place slightly more affordable.
|
| You know who else is really overpaid? A good chunk of the
| healthcare industry. My healthcare expenses are by far my
| highest money drain other than rent.
| zapdrive wrote:
| Totally agree. Tech salary bubble is going to burst soon. As a
| software engineer myself, I've already started looking for a
| plan B.
| the_only_law wrote:
| Found anything good? I've had a few ideas over the years, but
| they all involve expensive school I'd need an high salary to
| even afford.
| zapdrive wrote:
| I'm thinking of getting into construction. The only other
| classmates from high school who are making as much as me,
| or even more are those into real estate.
| dog321 wrote:
| Software engineers are the only highly paid professionals that
| can convince themselves they are worth less than the going
| market rate. Not sure i've seen this common sentiment in
| banking, law, medicine, real estate, or high $ sales.
| comprev wrote:
| I disagree about being overpaid.
|
| Similar to other professions - engineering and medicine for
| example - we have a career which requires a dedication to
| constant learning.
|
| We build systems which allow companies to generate billions in
| revenue and deserve a slice of the pie.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >and deserve a slice of the pie.
|
| ...and deserve a fair slice of the pie.
| ksaun wrote:
| I wish these companies would generate fewer billions in
| revenue, choosing to make their businesses more beneficial to
| society as a whole instead of apparently focusing on
| maximizing profit. It seems like all parties involved could
| still be quite adequately compensated.
|
| Unfortunately (in my opinion), that's not how it is. Given
| our reality, I think I agree with you that SWEs do deserve
| that slice of that pie. But I very much wish that more people
| placed greater priority on benefiting others/society instead.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| But you have much lower education and time costs, no?
|
| >In all, it takes about eight to ten years to become a
| professional engineer, depending on whether you decide to get
| a master's degree.
|
| >Doctors must complete a four-year undergraduate program,
| along with four years in medical school and three to seven
| years in a residency program to learn the specialty they
| chose to pursue. In other words, it takes between 10 to 14
| years to become a fully licensed doctor.
| dann0 wrote:
| I'm a marketer. I hold a Master's and a couple of Graduate
| Diplomas. I have a professional designation that requires
| constant CPD. I spend a significant amount of my time
| undertaking professional development. I work longer hours
| and can make a good case that my work has more impact than
| engineers, and I get paid significantly less than engineers
| with similar tenure.
|
| I can't see any reasonable argument that engineers are
| intrinsically worth more, (and I say that as a person that
| dropped out of Engineering to pursue other opportunities).
| There might be fewer (good ones) than what the market
| needs, and this obviously pushes salaries up.
| jrockway wrote:
| Have you run into a lot of great software engineers that
| didn't spend at least that many hours working on their own
| projects? I don't think you could even pass an internship
| interview if all you did was go to class for 4 years.
| (Passing the classes is of course predicated on doing a lot
| of programming outside of class, if only to have some text
| files to turn in!)
|
| Most of the job training for this field comes from within.
| Hours, weeks, years alone with a computer. Nobody sees
| that, and you don't pay someone to administer it to you.
| But it's absolutely required.
| 0zemp2c wrote:
| > we have a career which requires a dedication to constant
| learning
|
| 95% of that is chasing dumb fads, pop cultures, pointless
| shiny objects, technology fetishes
| booleandilemma wrote:
| That's part of it, but there is truly a lot to know in
| software development, and while people can argue it's not
| on the same level as doctor, lawyer, and engineer, it's
| definitely a harder job than most others out there.
|
| Here's a list of the 25 most common jobs in the US
| according to Indeed: https://www.indeed.com/career-
| advice/finding-a-job/most-comm...
|
| I will confidently say Software Developer (# 24 on the
| list) is a more difficult job than almost all of them.
| jason0597 wrote:
| _deleted_
| Freedom2 wrote:
| That's literally what they said...? (that is, engineering
| and medicine are professions of dedicated learning)
| jason0597 wrote:
| My apologies, I've been up for 18hrs today
| nvader wrote:
| Perhaps it's the meaning of the word "similar" that is
| giving you trouble.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| JustLurking2022 wrote:
| Most engineers earn nothing close to FAANG comp. Even some
| really great computer scientists who just don't happen to
| live in the silicon valley bubble don't.
| tivert wrote:
| > Similar to other professions - engineering and medicine for
| example - we have a career which requires a dedication to
| constant learning.
|
| So do adjunct professors, and they're paid peanuts.
|
| > We build systems which allow companies to generate billions
| in revenue and deserve a slice of the pie.
|
| Capitalists don't care what you think you deserve. Their
| morality says if the labor market situation means they can
| get away with paying you peanuts, it's righteous for them to
| do so, regardless if you do things that "allow companies to
| generate billions in revenue."
|
| The people who care about getting people paid what they
| deserve will play a tiny violin for you, since most workers
| have it _way, way worse_ than software engineers have it now.
| airstrike wrote:
| People generally get paid the amount that it costs to find
| someone else to do their job1
|
| It is very easy to find someone else to be a "rater". Certainly
| easier than it is to find another software engineer
|
| You can argue SWE wages are inflated but comparing them to
| someone testing whether YouTube search returns the right
| results is inaccurate and feels disingenuous
|
| "Fairness" is a vague concept which nobody can agree on. It's
| definitely not as easily observable as, say, the marginal cost
| of replacing a worker
|
| ---------------
|
| 1. This also happens to be a helpful framework for establishing
| "value", beyond the context of labor. For instance: how much is
| a company worth? The amount it would cost to replace them if
| they were taken out of the picture
| segasaturn wrote:
| By that logic, Sundar's pay is completely justified, as well
| as the pay cuts for Software Engineers, as more and more
| people become software engineers every day and available pool
| of workers continues to increase.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You don't think they could find a competent CEO for, say,
| $100M?
| segasaturn wrote:
| You don't think you could find a competent software
| engineer for $80k?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Sure can.
|
| A race to the bottom for engineers at the same time
| there's ever-increasing CEO pay is gross. That's the
| point.
| junipertea wrote:
| Well, yeah. Experience with multibillion companies is
| lottery, knowing software a commodity.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Except engineers bring value.
|
| If engineers are to be paid less, then where should the profit
| go?
| pdntspa wrote:
| Show me another profession that can have such a dramatic impact
| on the bottom line where your work makes the company 100x-1000x
| your salary. If anything SWE are underpaid, we should be
| getting a slice of total business unit revenue.
|
| With my last job doing SWE for a bank, I know for a fact that
| my code saved the company hundreds of thousands dollars just
| from one project, and I know for a fact that some of my other
| code oversaw over a billion dollars in loan volume annually.
|
| And what do I get come review time? No salary change and a
| variable bonus. It's fucking bullshit. These motherfuckers are
| getting rich off my back and they don't even share. Even 5% of
| revenue split across my entire team would be a million-plus or
| everyone, but nooooooooo we cant have that now can we? Whatever
| will the pathetic shareholders ever do then???
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| Well... between Apr 6, 2023 and the time of this post I have
| single-handedly brought in >1.2MM for the place I work. From
| initial customer contact to service provided to billing to
| negotiation (there's always negotiation after billing) to
| payment received and deposited, me alone. I got a $25 gift
| card yesterday (along with my [relatively low] regular and
| overtime pay throughout, of course). And I'm ok with that,
| tbh. I could get frustrated and envious and bitter, but I
| also couldn't have done that without the decades of brand
| awareness and business infrastructure and equipment and
| facility and support staff keeping all the rest of it going.
| I see it as that revenue paying the salary of other people so
| that they can do other things that leave me able to do my
| part. I refuse to play the "I did the work for this job so I
| deserve it all" game.
| ssklash wrote:
| You've just described what Marx identified 150 years ago.
| decafninja wrote:
| Well, you worked at a bank. Other than a few niche roles like
| algo trading, banks do not pay SWEs particularly well. Nor
| are they particularly well respected. You play second or
| third fiddle to the traders.
|
| SWEs at FAANG and other top tier tech companies are at a
| completely different level of compensation. I don't think
| they're underpaid.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| >we should be getting a slice of total business unit revenue
|
| Start a company then.
|
| Pay is not determined by value, it's determined by leverage.
| The CEO pays himself the most money because he controls the
| company, he's not going to pay anyone lower than him more
| than he makes.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _> we should be getting a slice of total business unit
| revenue
|
| Start a company then._
|
| Or go back in time 40 years.
|
| It used to be very common for companies to give a portion
| of the yearly profits to the employees. It was called
| "profit sharing."
|
| Somehow that perk evaporated in the tech industry.
| dann0 wrote:
| You're discounting the people that identified the
| opportunity, scoped out and defined the project, and then
| briefed you about what was needed.
|
| Sales, Marketing, and GTM are absolutely generating 100x -
| 1000x their salary if they take sole ownership of a project
| like you are doing.
|
| SWEs are good are solving problems, but other people
| determine which problems to pay attention to, and how much
| investment to make in them.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| In some companies, yes. In other engineering-driven
| companies it's the other way around.
|
| In many organizations, marketing is just asking customers
| what they want. E.g. ask a farmer from the turn of the
| century, they'd have said "I want a horse that pulls harder
| and eats less oats!"
|
| They'd never have said "I want a tractor!"
|
| It's Engineers that conceive of tractors.
| dann0 wrote:
| Hard disagree. Marketers conceive of tractors.
|
| They are the ones by talking to the customers and knowing
| what they need. They are the ones that know that one
| engineer has been working on a high power engine, and
| other on rugged, high traction trailers.
|
| Purely engineering firms fail in the long run as they
| drift away from what buyers want and chase interesting
| things because they think they know better.
| satao wrote:
| Maybe in the US, but around the world it us usually just a
| decent job. The main problem is not the engineers being
| overpaid, is the rampant inequality that the west has been
| experiencing without anyone doing anything.
|
| The situation is crazy right now. Engineers are not overpaid.
| The other jobs should have a better pay, while the CEOs should
| be paid a lot less.
| haliskerbas wrote:
| I never understand why well paid SWEs feel guilty instead of
| realize that being able to live comfortably if you're working
| most of your waking day should be the baseline accepted state
| for society.
| kazen44 wrote:
| Heck, from my perspective other professions are highly
| underpaid. I know a couple of friends who work in healthcare
| as medical proffesionals (nurses, doctors etc), their wages
| (especially of nurses) are atrocious compared to the value to
| society they provide.
| satao wrote:
| Definitely. Everybody in education and public health should
| be paid a looooot more.
| com2kid wrote:
| > I think the same applies to software engineers. Software
| Engineering has been a pay/perk bubble for years
|
| IMHO the reason is because American tech companies are located
| in cities with insane costs of living.
|
| If Silicon Valley wants to save some serious money on salary,
| bribe and cajole state and local governments to change housing
| policy.
| falcolas wrote:
| Google's board has spoken, and the price of their stock today
| matters more than the company's future.
|
| If I was an employee who cared about Google's vision, or what
| other services they could offer the world, the I'd probably be
| angry at the squandered opportunity too.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| Google is acting rationally. The products produced by these
| massively compensated employees in their 10s of thousands have
| failed to meaningfully add value beyond Search. Other Bets, X,
| Brain, DeepMind, etc, etc. All have failed over the last 20
| years. Just good money after bad. So, the rational thing to do
| is cut costs and harvest profits.
|
| How many product managers, marketers, TPMs, DEI personnel, and
| layers and layers of directors and VPs does Google need to keep
| Search cranking? Answer: far, far fewer.
| ebiester wrote:
| If they were angry enough, they'd unionize.
| armitron wrote:
| Pichai needs to go, Google is in dire need of someone that can
| shake things up.
| GJR wrote:
| What is the actual point of giving _anyone_ $226m in pay? How
| would that motivate them to deliver any more..? Ratio of
| CEO:staff pay at 1000:1!
| easytiger wrote:
| Why does Buffett get up and go to work in the morning?
| tabtab wrote:
| To beat competitors, not have tons of beemers for beemer
| sake. The motivation is relative. The 3 big "robber barons"
| of the late 1800's use to send each other brag-grams over who
| was richer.
| zymhan wrote:
| Certainly not because he needs to work for a living, or for
| anything at all.
| jason0597 wrote:
| Certainly not for money, he lives in a simple house and
| drives a simple car. Probably because he just likes his job
| ta1243 wrote:
| Why would someone work for $250m but not work for $150m? Or
| at that level of wealth work for free.
|
| Surely it's just for keeping score
| easytiger wrote:
| Mr Buffett is 92 years old and works every day and is worth
| approx $120 billion.
|
| In the past 70 years hes had more money than needed for him
| to decide to give it all up. Why hasn't he?
| staticman2 wrote:
| Why are you asking this question? Is it rhetorical, and
| if so, what point do you feel you are making?
| roflyear wrote:
| It's sad really
| [deleted]
| dataangel wrote:
| So if they paid him 0$ they could have kept 500-1,000 out of
| those 12,000 employees? And that's assuming none of his pay was
| redistributed to any of the employees they kept. That's the thing
| with these gigantic numbers, they always look really impressive,
| but when you divide them by the actual number of employees
| involved it's not a huge per-employee benefit. Not saying it's
| fair, just that if you stare starry eyed at the number thinking
| cutting out the top would make a huge difference in you're life,
| you're mistaken.
| kenjackson wrote:
| Were you trying to say 500-1000 of the employees isn't a huge
| number?
| ghostpepper wrote:
| It's roughly 4%. I would not call 4% of anything huge.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| Consensus is that a 4% APR on a savings account is huge...
| kenjackson wrote:
| That's just an absurd statement. If there was a new airline
| that said, "Only 4% of our flights end in crashes" -- I
| think you'd avoid it at all costs.
|
| Another way to look at his pay -- is he worth 4X what Satya
| is? Is he having 4X the positive impact at Google as what
| Satya is at Microsoft?
|
| Or another way to put it, what if you ONLY paid him $50M
| and kept 400 engineers (assuming they weren't laying off
| underperformers) -- would they be better off?
| doctor_eval wrote:
| Well, turn it around. Instead of letting go of 12,000 people,
| if they cut his salary to zero the they would "only" have let
| go of 11,000.
|
| Nevertheless, I still think the outrage is justified. Just
| not on financial grounds.
| izacus wrote:
| Now recalculate by using also additionally authorized 70B of
| stock buybacks to float the stocks that make those 220mil.
| lancesells wrote:
| I said this in another thread complaining about Pichai:
|
| Google
|
| 2019 Net Income - $36B
|
| 2022 Net Income - $60B
|
| If was part of the workforce I would be even more pissed just at
| the company itself. Laying off 12k and cuts in perks after $60B
| in net income.
| easytiger wrote:
| Significant portions of companies like google are parallel
| structures unrelated to revenue and body shops piled high to
| buy localised political influence.
| roflyear wrote:
| Also, layoffs fight inflation which fights higher rates. Low
| rates would mean amazing things for tech stocks.
| browningstreet wrote:
| And a bunch of us were making fun of him recently in the 60
| Minutes / AI thread... (me included)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-04 23:00 UTC)