Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it profitable?
Cloud is profitable. Waymo not, but is building. In any event, the grandparent was talking about revenue.
Which is completely meaningless. Anyone can sell a bunch of one dollar bills for 50 cents
Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
141–150 of 192 posts
Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
#142Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
#143absolutely no one is smart or productive enough to justify $692m in pay. they could hire thousands of engineers for that money.
ya i could hire 500 min wage baseball players to replace ohtani then.
Isn't that the plot of Moneyball? You'll almost never find a single player with 30 stolen bases and 30 HR both, but you can find two players with 30 stolen bases and 30 HR alone for cheaper.
Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "I take full responsibility" thing has been entirely meaningless. I guess it's supposed to convey that it's not the laid-off folks' fault, and that it was "his decision", but as you said: "taking full responsibility" without any real impact to his life? I may as well take full responsibility for the layoffs. It'd mean just as much.
Yeah, that's the thing; if he's acknowledging that it was his decision to do this, then maybe he shouldn't be getting bonuses and maybe be fired? Why are the regular schmucks the ones being punished for his terrible decisions and not him?
Maybe it was the right decision at the time to lay them off? I think that's why he got the bonus, actually! I'm sure the layoff was difficult for him as well: he certainly lost a lot of goodwill with his workforce and I'm sure the internal politics were tricky for anyone involved.
No one is getting "punished" - there was no promise of ten years of employment from Google. Like when an employee leaves, you wouldn't say they're "punishing" the employer.
Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that's the thing; if he's acknowledging that it was his decision to do this, then maybe he shouldn't be getting bonuses and maybe be fired? Why are the regular schmucks the ones being punished for his terrible decisions and not him?
Maybe it was the right decision at the time to lay them off? I think that's why he got the bonus, actually! I'm sure the layoff was difficult for him as well: he certainly lost a lot of goodwill with his workforce and I'm sure the internal politics were tricky for anyone involved. No one is getting "punished" - there was no promise of ten years of employment from Google. Like when an employee leaves, you wouldn't say…
> Maybe it was the right decision at the time to lay them off?
It probably was the right decision to lay everyone off. What was not the right decision, and this should have been obvious, was hiring 10+k more employees than you actually need because you assume that this free money will last forever. He was almost certainly aware and signed off on this mass hiring. Other companies didn't make this mistake; Tim Cook didn't take a bonus that year to avoid mass layoffs.
> he certainly lost a lot of goodwill with his workforce and I'm sure the internal politics were tricky for anyone involved.
He probably did, because he's a bad CEO. He was right to lose goodwill.
> No one is getting "punished" - there was no promise of ten years of employment from Google.
No, there isn't a legal promise or anything, but people go to these BigCos primarily for stability. If you want an exciting job with lots of interesting new things, it's much easier to find that in a startup, but startups can be frustrating because they're inherently unstable. This is partly why startups tend to be made up of very young people; it's much easier to deal with volatility if you don't have a family.
You're obviously not "entitled" to a job, but the people who run Google aren't complete idiots; they know people are joining BigCo because they think it's going to be relatively stable. They depended on that in order to do all this overhiring.
Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then up to $230M/year is "lower tax rate than his secretary" income? Why do you think that?
The IRS thinks that too. Stock grants, assuming they're EVER taxed (which isn't a given), are taxed at a lower rate than income. But as I indicated, most are never vested in the traditional sense, and are even lower than standard capital gains.
Stock grants (RSUs, like Google gives out) are taxed as ordinary income at the moment they vest.
If you sell them immediately, then you don't pay any additional capital gains tax, because there were no capital gains from the moment you got them to the moment you sold them.
If you hold on to them, you will eventually pay capital gains on any increase in value from the moment they vested until the moment you sell them.
Perhaps, once they are vested, you could take loans against them, to get some cash while avoiding selling them.
But no matter what, they are taxed at the moment you receive them, and again at the moment they leave your possession.
Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Proprietary Data (Youtube, docs, gmail, cloud logs, waymo, website analytics, ads, search, the list is huge) 2. Commercial Datacenters (theyre ahead at least) 3. Chip production (Google is manufactoring proprietary chips) 4. Consumer OS (Chrome, Andriod) 5. Consumer Hardware (Pixel) Basically google has access to data that OpenAI will never have access to, can lower costs below what OpenAI can, and is already a le…
You can't train LLMs on proprietary data, at least not if you want to make that LLM as accessible as Gemini. Otherwise random people can ask it your home address. So it matters less than one would think. Also, ChatGPT can do 'internet search' as a tool already, so it already has access to say Google maps POI database of SMBs. And ChatGPT also gets a lot of proprietary data of its own as well. People use it as a Googl…
[deleted]
Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
#148Google has substantially caught up on AI and between their existing monopolies, capital, access to data, and ability to sell to existing cloud or Google apps customers, they’re going to become richer and more powerful than ever.
This type of concentration makes it so that there’s no working competition element to the economy. Mega corps should be broken up and also charged absurdly high tax rates to fix this.
Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cloud is profitable. Waymo not, but is building. In any event, the grandparent was talking about revenue.
Which is completely meaningless. Anyone can sell a bunch of one dollar bills for 50 cents
That was the proper takeaway during Amazon.com’s preprofit stages.
Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shocking? Taxed on payout is a discount versus ordinary stiffs who get taxed every year. A percentage taken from the increase of an amount every year, is more than the same percentage taken at the end; as the former foregoes the opportunity to earn a return on the amount taxed earlier. This is quite significant over longer periods. (I learned that from one of Warren Buffet's annual letters - I think he was explaining…
Getting a lump-sum payment at the end of three years is worse than getting paid incrementally, and is sort of the opposite of how insurance companies make money (which is taking frontloaded payments for long-term liabilities and investing the float).
You're thinking about cash. This is options