91–100 of 357 posts
I know this comment will get lost in the sauce, but if you know an investor who is brave, cares about staving off the forthcoming proletarian revolution, I'd love to hear your ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's a good thing to repeat it again and again so we can see how ridiculous it is. Sometimes people really need to be hit on the head.
Why is it ridiculous when NFL and NBA players have $500MM contracts? Why shouldn't Google be allowed to pay these large contracts too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What often happens is that corporation in high tax country has subsidiary in low tax country that they find a way to funnel profits too. Not sure on details myself. It has to be done just right. I believe Ireland and the Netherlands are often host countries. Now this is different than money laundering, which is big time illegal, of course.
I think you're talking about the double Irish corporate inversion loophole, which applied to multinational companies, and was closed 10 years ago. As a US individual you get taxed no matter where in the world you live, and you must pay capital gains on all of your assets before giving up citizenship
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with pretty much everything you say except this. >Employees are merely, an often undesired, side-effect in the business of boosting stock prices. Employees are worse than a side effect, they're a cost center to be avoided if possible. You want to achieve your goals with as few employees as possible.
If you're a middle manager, what is your goal? Is it to have as few reports below you, or as many?
If your company is run well, you're incentivized to do more with less. If not, then the opposite.
Shareholders want the CEO and Company to do the best job they can, and do it with the lowest employee cost possible
> Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai was awarded compensation worth more than $225 million in 2022 I know this has been discussed here and 225MM is like the salary of 1000 employees making 200K for only one year, it is stock which is volatoile, that the salary of a CEO is impossible to measure, bla bla bla. But holy guacamole, whatever is the angle I look at it 225MM pear year does not make any f_ing sense to me and it is si…
225MM is not salary. It is stock compensation based on performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is a $1.6T company. For a guy that runs it to earn $200 M a year is basically nothing. Can he do good enough of job? Great, he's then definitely worth it (and, actually, he's worth much more).
> (and, actually, he's worth much more). Bullshit. Fucking nonsense, bullshit. I fail to understand how thinking people could ever believe that this is true - it's got to be innumeracy and a healthy dose of propaganda. Would Google lose the now-equivalent of 200m annual if any one of the top 100 leaders within the corp ascended to the goddamned throne? Fuck no. It's nonsense to believe any one person is worth compens…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it ridiculous when NFL and NBA players have $500MM contracts? Why shouldn't Google be allowed to pay these large contracts too?
You're conflating two kinds of people: one type is very talented and perhaps overpaid, the other has connections and has never done a shred of actual productive work in their life.
> Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai was awarded compensation worth more than $225 million in 2022 I know this has been discussed here and 225MM is like the salary of 1000 employees making 200K for only one year, it is stock which is volatoile, that the salary of a CEO is impossible to measure, bla bla bla. But holy guacamole, whatever is the angle I look at it 225MM pear year does not make any f_ing sense to me and it is si…
Google is a $1.6T company. For a guy that runs it to earn $200 M a year is basically nothing. Can he do good enough of job? Great, he's then definitely worth it (and, actually, he's worth much more).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never in history have companies hired more employees for the sake of having more employees. This isn't a new modern or even libertarian hypothesis. Do you think people in 1000 bc hired more employees than they needed just maximize headcount. Of course not. You want enough to get the job done and not more.
People in 1000 BC is maybe not the best example here considering practically the entire population of Egypt was tasked with building or supporting the building of the pyramids among many other projects.
Egypt had shops and Merchants too.
Can you think of any time between then and now where things worked that way?