111–120 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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...
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 ge…
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.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
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.
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 ge…
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.
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
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.
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.
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.