Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 192 posts

Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

#161

Post by s1artibartfast »

ambicapter wrote: post #15
varispeed wrote: post #2

Regular IT workers should be grateful they earn substantially more than a teacher or a nurse /s. The fact that labour cost is disconnected from the value it generates is probably one of the greatest scams pulled on working class. 99% of his pay packet should be redistributed among workers.

> The fact that labour cost is disconnected from the value it generates It's not disconnected from its value in the market, I don't think. I think the great scam is telling people that capitalist values are in any way attached to human values.

The problem is it's quite a bit more challenging to agree on prices for exchange denominated in human values.

There is no common currency.

Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

#162

Post by s1artibartfast »

rawgabbit wrote: post #131
Matticus_Rex wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not at all. You're taxed on equity at fair market value when it vests. It's only after that when you get taxed at a lower rate on the capital gains.

This seems to say the opposite. If your employer grants you a statutory stock option, you generally don't include any amount in your gross income when you receive or exercise the option https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc427

The IRS page refers to Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) as "statutory" options. These are the "holy grail" because they allow you to avoid income tax at exercise and only pay capital gains when you sell.

ISOs have a 100k cap per year.

Further, the next line after your exceprt is "However, you may be subject to alternative minimum tax in the year you exercise an ISO", which is an income tax

Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

#163

Post by s1artibartfast »

ajb wrote: post #152
jcheng wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A percentage taken from the increase of an amount every year, is more than the same percentage taken at the end It sounds like you're describing a hypothetical tax on unrealized gains? Do you have a link to the Buffet letter?

No; just the difference between someone who gets a fixed number of shares and has to sell them (and pay the tax on them) that year, versus someone who is allowed to accumulate the shares and pay the tax at the end. This may assume that there is more alpha in the shares than other investments you have access to, which is perhaps less true today. But it should probably be your position if you're CEO of the company... A…

Why do you think they get to accumulate shares and pay tax at the end. If options Sundar will have the pay income when exercised, or if RSU, they will have to pay income taxes when granted.

If you want to research the tax imlications, the relevant term is PSU (Performance Stock Units), which is the form almost all of these CEO incentives take.

Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

#164

Post by fancyfredbot »

Is this what motivates Sundar Pichai to work harder for Google? More money? Surely there's nothing he could want that he doesn't already have.

I understand it's insulting to be paid less than other CEOs, and I get that it's a way of keeping score.

All the same I think he's doing it for the power, the respect, the fame. Would he have walked away if the number was only $100m? Would that have been rational?

Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

#165

Post by spwa4 »

impulser_ wrote: post #156
y0ssar1an wrote: post #88

absolutely no one is smart or productive enough to justify $692m in pay. they could hire thousands of engineers for that money.

He runs the 2nd most valuable company in the world, and the company is most profitable company ever. Giving him 700m in stock to keep him around is worth it for both the investors and employees.

Isn't Google famous for the investors and the employees both being entirely powerless?

Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

#167

Post by smt88 »

JCharante wrote: post #102
smt88 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pichai is being evaluated for his effect on stock price. His shareholders don't care if every product and service they offer has gotten worse for users in the meantime. Gemini keeping pace with Claude and ChatGPT is clearly some kind of management victory, because Zuckerberg and Musk don't seem to be able to do it despite having limitless cash to spend.

naive question: which product and service has gotten worse? Like they removed the youtube dislike button what else? Everything seems to be getting better. Tying incentives to Waymo is almost unfair because Waymo is amazing and just keeps getting better.

Text search (without Gemini) and Gmail are much worse than they used to be. Android is less open, Chrome doesn't allow proper ad-blocking, YouTube has insane ads if you don't have Premium.

Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

#168

Post by ajb »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #163
ajb wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; just the difference between someone who gets a fixed number of shares and has to sell them (and pay the tax on them) that year, versus someone who is allowed to accumulate the shares and pay the tax at the end. This may assume that there is more alpha in the shares than other investments you have access to, which is perhaps less true today. But it should probably be your position if you're CEO of the company... A…

Why do you think they get to accumulate shares and pay tax at the end. If options Sundar will have the pay income when exercised, or if RSU, they will have to pay income taxes when granted. If you want to research the tax imlications, the relevant term is PSU (Performance Stock Units), which is the form almost all of these CEO incentives take.

(edited) My bad, I meant to type "options" not "shares". You get to choose when to exercise options. When tax is incurred will vary according to your jurisdiction.

I'm fairly sure that Sundar Pinchai will have paid someone to research the tax implications before negotiating this deal.

Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

#169

Post by tasuki »

tombert wrote: post #158
tasuki wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they know people are joining BigCo because they think it's going to be relatively stable And after all this, people will think twice whether BigCo is stable. Just as well! If you want stability, look into small family-run companies.

This doesn’t absolve Google at all. They aren’t morons, they know that people joined because of that perceived stability.

Well I hope people won't perceive this (nonexistent) stability in the future.

I'm not trying to "absolve" Google, nor do I think they're guilty. They used their reputation to hire people. It turns out that needs to be updated. Perhaps in the future they will do things to improve their reputation again? Who knows...

Re: Google just gave Sundar Pichai a $692M pay package

#170

Post by tombert »

tasuki wrote: post #169
tombert wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t absolve Google at all. They aren’t morons, they know that people joined because of that perceived stability.

Well I hope people won't perceive this (nonexistent) stability in the future. I'm not trying to "absolve" Google, nor do I think they're guilty. They used their reputation to hire people. It turns out that needs to be updated. Perhaps in the future they will do things to improve their reputation again? Who knows...

It just feels a little victim-blamey. Google manipulated thousands of people, and they got screwed in the process. Should they have known that big corporations are evil? Maybe, but I'm not going to blame someone who was misled by dishonest people.

If you're agreeing that they misled people by using their reputation in a way that's dishonest, how are they "not guilty"?

Post reply on HN